tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post2561950421311665036..comments2024-03-17T11:05:22.464+00:00Comments on The Life And Opinions of Andrew Rilstone: Is "Screwtape Proposes a Toast" by C.S Lewis a critique of American education?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-30031260533678854782013-01-14T22:12:47.820+00:002013-01-14T22:12:47.820+00:00Correction to my own post above.
Here is the link...Correction to my own post above.<br /><br />Here is the link to my excerpt at my own blog:<br />http://moordarjeeling.blogspot.com/2007/12/bonfire-at-lewis-home-per-gresham.html<br /><br />Here is the excerpt, which I in 2007 took from Doug's post in this MereLewis archive, which no longer comes up for my browsers:<br />http://listserv.aol.com/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0010C&L=MERELEWIS&P=R4675&I=-3<br /><i><br />[...] The Kilns had no garbage collection service at all. The answer to this dilemma was a lot simply in those days than it would be today. There was a lot less disposable waste than there is in these days of insane packaging, and there were no regulations about burning things in your back yard and so forth. Fred simply took anything that was considered to need to be disposed of out past the old brick kilns and behind the long, low, brick-drying shed or "the barn" as we called it, to a patch of empty wasteland that Jack and Warnie always called "Gehenna" and dumped it onto the smouldering pyre that burnt there day and night week in week out for all the time that I lived at The Kilns. It took a rare downpour indeed to extinguish this evil-smelling ghat, and the corpses of many unfinished projects met their final dissolution there to say nothing of finished ones in their preparatory stages. On the rare occasions when it did actually go out, Fred would rake out the ashes into a flat layer, and then simply bring out his old "Tommy" wheel-and-flint lighter and light it all up again with a new pile of rubbish. When Fred was on holiday the task of feeding this monster fell to me.<br />There was a bonfire, all the time, year after year, and I can't help hoping that the house which is today standing on the site where the fire used to burn, is haunted by that egregious smell that hovered around the place for many years.</i><br /><br />In this excerpt Doug used the term 'bonfire' but not 'of the vanities'.<br /><br />In a nearby post I gave examples of 'bonfire' as meaning an ordinary fire of household trash, or sometimes a perennial fire of garden trimmings.<br />http://moordarjeeling.blogspot.com/2007/07/bonfire-in-lewiss-culture.html<br /><br />maryezz@sonic.netAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-23226799838838174902013-01-13T03:17:02.427+00:002013-01-13T03:17:02.427+00:00Andrew Stevens said...
Lindskoog also correctly sh...<i>Andrew Stevens said...<br />Lindskoog also correctly showed that Hooper's "bonfire" story was, at least, exaggerated.</i><br /><br />For the record (and probably for my sins), I found Doug Gresham's explanation of the Kilns 'bonfire of the vanities' in an old online MereLewis archive. Iirc Doug posted that yes, they kept a trash fire burning pretty constantly at normal times; yes, they referred to it as 'bonfire of the vanities'; and iirc that yes, at Lewis's death papers got burned in it, or set aside to be burned in it, that people later wished had been kept, iirc.<br /><br />I posted quotes and links of and to this, at my Moordarjeeling blog on iirc Blogspot, a few years ago, while arguing with someone at Dr. Zeus's (now closed). Dunno if my old blog is still accessible.<br /><br />maryezz@sonic.net<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-15446186779840139652008-09-21T13:57:00.000+01:002008-09-21T13:57:00.000+01:00SCULLY: I've heard the truth, Mulder. Now what I w...SCULLY: I've heard the truth, Mulder. Now what I want are the answers.Lars Konzackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06642711100378925950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-63201859308841685982008-09-19T04:28:00.000+01:002008-09-19T04:28:00.000+01:00Oops, Mrs. Lindskoog did acknowledge Hooper's stat...Oops, Mrs. Lindskoog did acknowledge Hooper's statement about Lewis and Mrs. Moore (which wasn't made until 1991), so presumably she thinks he was pressured into that one.Andrew Stevenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13453328821252013152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-40386754211454804252008-09-19T04:12:00.000+01:002008-09-19T04:12:00.000+01:00A.N. Wilson, of course, took on both sides of this...A.N. Wilson, of course, took on both sides of this match. He too claimed that Walter Hooper believed in C.S. Lewis's "perpetual virginity" (and also took on Mrs. Lindskoog for other things). The problem with this (for both Mrs. Lindskoog and Mr. Wilson) is that Mr. Hooper believes no such thing and never has. In fact, in 1971 Walter Hooper wrote in Past Watchful Dragons, "Lewis lost his virginity while a pupil at Cherbourg House..." (I am indebted to Arend Smilde's <A HREF="http://www.solcon.nl/arendsmilde/cslewis/reflections/e-definitivebiography.htm" REL="nofollow">review</A> of Mr. Wilson's biography for this tidbit.) Although I suppose Mrs. Lindskoog could claim that Mr. Hooper was actually suggesting something other than sex with a woman in that passage. Moreover, Hooper has also written, "The combination of motive, means and opportunity invites, though it does not demand, the conclusion that Janie King Moore and C.S. Lewis were lovers." Which is hardly the most fierce of denials.<BR/><BR/>By the way, is there any evidence for a sexual relationship between Lewis and Mrs. Moore? (There is, of course, plenty for Lewis and his wife.) I know of course that A.N. Wilson says "It would also be amazing, though no evidence is forthcoming either way, if Lewis's thirty-year relationship with Mrs. Moore was entirely asexual." I've never quite gotten why this would be "amazing."Andrew Stevenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13453328821252013152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-1420304115034994922008-09-19T00:29:00.000+01:002008-09-19T00:29:00.000+01:00I once had an e-mail, and, come to think of it, a ...I once had an e-mail, and, come to think of it, a complimentary copy of "Light in the Shadowlands" from Ms. Lindskoog. I think I had pointed out that "They Stand Together" is a quote from "The Four Loves" about friendship, and therefore a perfectly reasonable title for a book about C.S Lewis and Arthur Greaves. She said that a student had definitely told her that it was gay slang for "they are lovers", as if that settled the question.<BR/><BR/>Actually, I might be preapred to file this under "oral testimony, collected by the author, uncorroborated but quite interesting." Where Lindskoog strays towards the lunatick is in claiming that Hooper put a picture of Magadelen Tower on the front of the book <I>becase it is shaped like a man's willy</I> and not, say, because it was Lewis's college.<BR/><BR/>My understanding is that Hooper needs a gay Lewis because that would mean that his relationships with Mrs. Moore and Joy Davidman were celibate; and Lewis has to be celibate in order to qualifiy for canonization. Some of us might have imagined that a bigger obstacle would have been the fact that he was, er, a protestant.Andrew Rilstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16934052271846235431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-27330678533587376622008-09-19T00:26:00.000+01:002008-09-19T00:26:00.000+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Andrew Rilstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16934052271846235431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-16208230977668507942008-09-18T17:38:00.000+01:002008-09-18T17:38:00.000+01:00To clarify: she lost them when it comes to Hooper ...To clarify: she lost them when it comes to Hooper and Lewis. I didn't mean to imply that she was equally obsessive in all other aspects of her life.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-52180055827021166302008-09-18T17:32:00.000+01:002008-09-18T17:32:00.000+01:00I didn't know Lindskoog, but I know people who kne...I didn't know Lindskoog, but I know people who knew her. Based on what I'm told, I'd say the fair assessment is that she had an obsessive personality even before her illness, and that the illness (multiple sclerosis) may have made things worse, both by limiting her range of activities and by its neurological effects. I don't think she was a lunatic, but I think she lacked, or at some point lost, a normally healthy person's objectivity and sense of proportion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-12135415629170541432008-09-18T17:15:00.000+01:002008-09-18T17:15:00.000+01:00Kbrowne,You are absolutely correct. I was being t...Kbrowne,<BR/><BR/>You are absolutely correct. I was being too harsh on Mrs. Lindskoog when I referred to her as a lunatic. (I could defend myself by saying that in the whole Lord/Liar/Lunatic trilemma, I had to choose lunatic since I don't believe she's a liar or the Lord.) I should say, though, that her whole "homosexual innuendo" obsession is what leads me to this. I have never seen these homosexual innuendos of hers, <I>even after she points them out</I>. "They Stand Together" is not a gay code-phrase anywhere in the world, despite what Mrs. Lindskoog thinks. However, you're not wrong that having a couple of bees in one's bonnet doesn't make one nuts and Mr. Rilstone was correct that Mrs. Lindskoog seems to be normally correct in her facts.<BR/><BR/>I certainly don't believe Mrs. Lindskoog was dishonest. There is no question in my mind that she believed everything that she said. She was also, I might add, certainly one of the world's foremost authorities on Lewis. Some people assert that her envy over Mr. Hooper's position is what drove her to make her arguments. I don't believe this is true. In fact, I believe she was mostly motivated by distaste for Walter Hooper over what she regarded as his ill-treatment of C.S. Lewis's brother Warren. (It was reading Warren's diary, which had been willed to Wheaton College, which drove Mrs. Lindskoog against Walter Hooper.) And she was also certainly motivated by a genuine love for and desire to protect Lewis's legacy.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, she had a tendency to dismiss out of hand any and all evidence that disagreed with her. She never seriously grappled with the finding of "Modern Man and his Categories of Thought" at the World Council of Churches, defiantly continuing to place it on her list of "questionable" works. Many people pointed out to her that nobody but her had ever heard of "they stand together" being used as a gay code-phrase; she ignored them. I believe she viewed herself as something like a prosecuting attorney and she thought this gave her license to ignore exculpatory evidence and use any means in her power to "get" Walter Hooper.<BR/><BR/>Hooper's lies were, as far as I know, never meant to hurt anybody; they were meant primarily to aggrandize himself. I find such lies fairly forgivable. (I'm not saying that he should have said them, of course. It was both an offense against honesty and a very foolish thing to have done, as I'm sure he is now very well aware.) <BR/><BR/>I should probably be more charitable to Mrs. Lindskoog. There is no doubt that she placed a lot of weight on the analyses of A.Q. Morton and Carla Faust Jones. I don't, but if I did, perhaps I'd be as convinced of Walter Hooper's guilt as she was. One of the reasons why I linked to Joe Christopher's colloquy is because Mr. Christopher (who wrote introductions to all of Mrs. Lindskoog's indictments of Walter Hooper) strikes me as an entirely fair-minded man who agrees with Mrs. Lindskoog. And he puts virtually all of the argument on these analyses, particularly on the Morton analysis. One of the reasons Mr. Christopher strikes me as fair-minded (along with his acceptance of "Modern Man" as genuine) is because of the following quote, "I do not know what percentage to put on the computer analyses of the manuscript. Morton tended to give huge percentages that he was accurate. I would like to see other types of studies made -- the checking of the document, the checking of the ink, etc. This is the best information we have at the present time." I believe Morton's technique has been discredited, particularly by Pieter de Haan and Erik Schils, hardly surprising since it relies on the highly questionable assumption that an author's habits of speaking/writing remain constant throughout his life, across genres, across writing and speaking, in sickness and in health, etc.<BR/><BR/>And thanks for the information on the published lie of Walter Hooper; it fits very well into Hooper's pattern of making fairly vague implications that he knew Lewis better than he did. I'm sure he justified it to himself by saying, "June is in the first half of the year so it can be called 'early 1963.'" As for August versus September, it <I>could</I> just be a misrecollection, though I concede that's unlikely and I certainly believe that is probably a knowing lie.Andrew Stevenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13453328821252013152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-40726282515121918592008-09-18T12:43:00.000+01:002008-09-18T12:43:00.000+01:00Andrew Stevens,I am in favour of treating Hooper c...Andrew Stevens,<BR/><BR/>I am in favour of treating Hooper charitably, but perhaps we could also treat Lindskoog charitably. Calling someone a lunatic because you think she is mistaken is neither charitable nor fair.<BR/><BR/>Unlike Hooper, Lindskoog does not strike me as dishonest. She was probably wrong in thinking that Hooper forged 'The Dark Tower' but I can understand her reluctance to believe that Lewis wrote that dreadful story.<BR/><BR/>As for Hooper, I can give you one example of a published lie. In the first edition of his biography of Lewis Hooper writes that he first met Lewis early in 1963 and that he left England at the end of September. In fact, he met Lewis in June and left at the end of August.Kathenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00185421952505762014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-16326165585561503502008-09-18T04:30:00.000+01:002008-09-18T04:30:00.000+01:00I don't believe that's possible in the UK, but I'm...I don't believe that's possible in the UK, but I'm certainly no expert either. A quick look at Wikipedia on copyright law in the United Kingdom made my eyes glaze over.<BR/><BR/>This:<BR/><BR/><I>If an unpublished work was published prior to the 1988 Act coming into force and the author had been dead for more than 50 years, then that work remained in copyright for a period of 50 years dating from its publication, plus a period to the end of the year in question. If an unpublished work was published after the 1988 Act coming into force the author had been dead for more than 50 years then its copyright expires at the end of 2039. Later amendments changed this term to the author dying more than 70 years before. So an unpublished work by an author who died before 1969 published after commencement of the 1988 Act expires at the end of 2039. However if a work by an author who died say in 1870 was published in 1960, its copyright would expire 50 years after 1960, or in 2010.</I><BR/><BR/>seems to be the relevant section. I believe it says that unpublished Lewis works published after 1988 expire at the end of 2039. If before 1988, then 50 years after publication. So all copyrights will be expired by the end of 2039, but some will expire before then.Andrew Stevenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13453328821252013152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-39579245270391209532008-09-18T03:24:00.000+01:002008-09-18T03:24:00.000+01:00Ah, the scholarly editions. Yes, that makes sense....Ah, the scholarly editions. Yes, that makes sense. But just real quick about the expiration issue: it's not that I thought Lewis Pte could get the law changed in the UK, but rather that they would do some sort of repackaging--for instance with corrections in light of known textual variants--that would allow them to hit "refresh" on the copyright, at least in some countries. I dimly recall hearing of such tricks. But again, I'm no expert.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-46689888246947266822008-09-18T03:04:00.000+01:002008-09-18T03:04:00.000+01:00For those who are interested, most of Lewis's manu...For those who are interested, most of Lewis's manuscripts are held at Wheaton College in Illinois (where Clyde Kilby, one of the earliest Lewis scholars who corresponded with Lewis from 1953-1963, taught for many years) and the Bodleian Library at Oxford. (Manuscripts more likely to be found in the Bodleian, letters more likely at Wheaton.) There may be some manuscripts which are still controlled by Hooper, but I'm pretty sure all of the disputed ones are available to the public.Andrew Stevenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13453328821252013152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-90600300779076931532008-09-18T02:44:00.000+01:002008-09-18T02:44:00.000+01:00Copyright issues matter because that's when schola...Copyright issues matter because that's when scholarly editions of Lewis's work will be worth doing. There isn't any point to doing them now since you're not allowed to publish them. Just a "follow the money" thing. (Not entirely fair since I expect the academics who will eventually do it will actually lose money on the deal, but they will get to publish, which is a fair trade for them.) You are quite correct, though, that these manuscripts are available in various libraries and could be thoroughly checked at any time. Nobody has bothered to put in the time and money necessary to do so yet though, and I don't see that changing any time soon.<BR/><BR/>By the by, while the copyright might possibly be extended, it's certainly not the Lewis Estate which has the kind of money and influence for something like that. But they might be able to free-ride on somebody else convincing Parliament to extend copyrights.Andrew Stevenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13453328821252013152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-48601230126191193402008-09-18T02:37:00.000+01:002008-09-18T02:37:00.000+01:00I'm not a copyright law expert, but from what I ca...I'm not a copyright law expert, but from what I can tell, the Lewis estate (with which Hooper and Douglas Gresham are both connected) will probably use whatever tricks it can to extend the copyright life. They've been pretty aggressive in exploiting commercial possibilities. (Trivia: in the US they've trademarked Narnia-themed lip balm, key chains, toothbrushes, Halloween costumes, and much else; see TM Ser. Nr. 76436251.)<BR/><BR/>Anyway, why would copyright expiration help? Isn't it rather a question of original materials being made available for public inspection? Or am I being dense about something?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-60597126023765502222008-09-17T19:35:00.000+01:002008-09-17T19:35:00.000+01:00it's a bit like one of those logic puzzle where on...<I>it's a bit like one of those logic puzzle where one man always lies, one man sometimes lies and sometimes tells the truth, and one man always tells the truth, isn't it....</I><BR/><BR/>Before I retort, as a childhood fan of Raymond Smullyan, I just want to say that this is a truly great line.<BR/><BR/>If we're going to psychoanalyze Walter Hooper from a distance, I think we should do so with at least a small amount of charity. Walter Hooper was a 32 year-old man when he met his hero, C.S. Lewis. (He first wrote to Lewis in 1954 when he was 23 and Lewis had told him that he should focus on God rather than on Lewis.) To his great delight, Lewis asked him for some help with writing letters, etc. Even better, Lewis wished him to come back and continue these services in 1964. To his great disappointment, his hero died while he was back in America. When he returned to England, he finds Lewis's estate (by Lindskoog's own account) in some disarray. The executor of his estate, Owen Barfield, was a man who, according to Lindskoog herself, didn't much care for or have much interest in Lewis's fiction and was philosophically quite different from Lewis. (Lewis described Barfield once as the friend "who disagrees with you about everything.") Hooper's offer, as something of an expert on Lewis's work and a known companion to Lewis, to take over this burden from Barfield must have come as quite a relief.<BR/><BR/>The problem, of course, is that Hooper is now in a position to which he has no particular right. To bolster himself, he foolishly chose to exaggerate his relationship with Lewis. One can sympathize with the man's motives. How many people haven't dressed up a story a bit to make it more dramatic or interesting? I can't even begin to say how many people have told me obvious urban legends, while claiming to have direct personal knowledge of them. Most of these people aren't bad people. Hooper had a further motivation to do this since he knew full well he had no right to the position which had so fortunately fallen into his lap. So his insecurity caused him to make up a few stories. <I>Most of these stories were not outright lies.</I> Most of the time, he simply gave a false impression and did nothing to correct it. To the best of my knowledge, the only actual lie that was <I>published</I> by Walter Hooper was on a dust jacket (which claimed that Hooper was Lewis's secretary "for years") which Hooper probably didn't write himself. I'm not familiar with A.N. Wilson's evidence, however, so I could be wrong about that.<BR/><BR/>Those are the sins of Hooper's of which we have no doubt. Let us assume that we take a fairly dim view of such sins. Surely, we can agree that there is a difference of magnitude between that and creating his own works, going to all the trouble of forging documents in Lewis's handwriting, and then publishing them as if they were his hero's.<BR/><BR/>Now, the claim that Hooper has not been a particularly scholarly editor of Lewis's works is true. I'm not going to defend Hooper on that. It ought to be his job, now that Lewis is dead, to publish all versions of the poems and let the readers decide. However, it should be said that this is clearly the academic view of how Lewis's estate should be handled, rather than the commercial view. (Such works wouldn't sell particularly well as Christopher Tolkien can probably attest.)<BR/><BR/>I am convinced that all the controversy that has been caused by Hooper will eventually be resolved to (just about) everyone's satisfaction once Lewis's copyright expires. My guess is that Hooper will be exonerated of forgery, but, on some occasions, found guilty of heavy-handed editing. (Another good online discussion is at <A HREF="http://chronicle.com/colloquylive/2001/07/cslewis/" REL="nofollow">this link</A>. It's an account of a colloquy with Joe Christopher, a Lindskoog supporter and includes an interesting question by Edwin Brown.)Andrew Stevenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13453328821252013152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-69425025827628632122008-09-17T11:59:00.000+01:002008-09-17T11:59:00.000+01:00On the other other hand: in his introduction to Le...On the other other hand: in his introduction to Lewis's poems, Hooper explicitly claims that texts in his own (Hooper's) handwriting might be by Lewis; that Lewis vouchsafed to him (and to no-one else) "true" versions of poems that were never committed to paper; and that he Hooper has taken it on himself to decide which are the "best" versions of particular poems: sometimes following the version that Lewis published in his life-time, but sometimes rejecting a published version and going back to an earlier draft.<BR/><BR/>"When I was his secretary, he sometimes used to dictate poems. Even after he thought one was completed, he might suggest a change here. Then a change there."<BR/><BR/>'When I was his secretary' means, of course, 'During the ten days to a fortnight that I was his house guest (when he was sick and I wrote some letters on his behalf.)' <BR/><BR/>Lewis <I>wanted</I> to take Hooper on as a full time, paid secretary, but it never happened. Someone who read the introduction to the poems, or the all those introductions in which Hooper and Lewis do the washing up while chatting about the difference between "pretty" and "beautiful" wouldn't know that. A.N Wilson cites some Hooper texts which, if real, would amount to actual and obvious porkies -- what Jack said to Walter on their way back from church "one Easter" -- but I don't trust <I>any</I> quote from Wilson unless I have the text in front of me. <BR/><BR/>What Wilson said Hooper said Lewis said: it's a bit like one of those logic puzzle where one man always lies, one man sometimes lies and sometimes tells the truth, and one man always tells the truth, isn't it....Andrew Rilstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16934052271846235431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-34815959808289074572008-09-16T18:14:00.000+01:002008-09-16T18:14:00.000+01:00Thank you to Andrew and all for all the fascinatin...Thank you to Andrew and all for all the fascinating and informative discussion. I had no idea all this was coming when I inquired about "textually problematic"!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-82228381115035728972008-09-16T17:26:00.000+01:002008-09-16T17:26:00.000+01:00By the by, try here for an enlightening discussion...By the by, try <A HREF="http://chronicle.com/free/v47/i45/45a01201.htm" REL="nofollow">here</A> for an enlightening discussion on Lindskoog in general and <A HREF="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/february/28.44.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> for The Dark Tower in particular. There is a good reason Lewis abandoned The Dark Tower and I don't think many people argue that it is very good, but Alastair Fowler definitely confirms discussing the book with Lewis in 1952.Andrew Stevenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13453328821252013152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-5087317870894756842008-09-16T16:42:00.000+01:002008-09-16T16:42:00.000+01:00Lindskoog also correctly showed that Hooper's "bon...Lindskoog also correctly showed that Hooper's "bonfire" story was, at least, exaggerated. But showing that a man would lie about his relationship with Lewis and his own importance in rescuing Lewis's lost works is very different from showing he's a forger. (Moreover Lindskoog herself acknowledged the authenticity of a number of the "bonfire works," so showing that the story was exaggerated or made up doesn't really cast doubt on the provenance of the other works in that group as she seems to believe.) Her original claim was that Hooper had stolen the works he originally claimed to have rescued from the bonfire. After Clyde Kilby died, she decided that Hooper had forged them instead.<BR/><BR/>I can name at least one example where I believe she was conclusively proved wrong. She identified "Modern Man and His Categories of Thought" as a forgery. The World Council of Churches had a copy of this work that they had received from Lewis in 1946 (they were the ones who originally requested it). I doubt that the World Council of Churches is a Hooper front, though I suppose it's possible. Moreover, when Hooper's version was compared, it was determined that Hooper had made only a very few minor editorial changes. (Ms. Lindskoog continued to insist that the text may nonetheless be corrupt, but gave no argument for this belief.) Her evidence against Hooper is very similar to yours. ("This work seems to be beneath Lewis's caliber" or, in her case, "I seem to be able to read homosexual innuendo into this work and therefore it can't be by Lewis.") The rest of her evidence consists of pseudo-scientific "style analysis" such as "cusum" analysis which is entirely unreliable. The evidence for Hooper, handwriting analysis, while surely not conclusive, is a much stronger reed than that nonsense.<BR/><BR/>Claiming that Lewis's work was edited by someone else and claiming that it was an outright forgery are two entirely different things. If all you wanted to argue was "I believe that Lewis's work here was clumsily edited by an outside hand, quite possibly Hooper, even though he doesn't say so" we might disagree, but I wouldn't say you were definitely wrong.<BR/><BR/>This is not to say that I think Hooper's claims about what Lewis really believed about Catholicism have any merit.<BR/><BR/>But, you shouldn't listen to me anyway. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.Andrew Stevenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13453328821252013152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-56301038127947955722008-09-16T02:49:00.000+01:002008-09-16T02:49:00.000+01:00I might also point out that Kathryn Lindskoog is d...I might also point out that Kathryn Lindskoog is dead. This is not a reason for referring to her in the past tense, but it does suggest that whatever kookiness or errors may have been hers have probably been corrected by now.<BR/> <BR/>(I sometimes wish I could peer in the window of that great Bird and Baby in the sky...)Lirazelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07740446717034940156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-59983784923022296032008-09-15T23:53:00.000+01:002008-09-15T23:53:00.000+01:00"Municipal authority" is a nexample.The substantiv..."Municipal authority" is a nexample.<BR/><BR/>The substantive point is that there is a mixture of British English ("the right sort of chaps") and American English ("the employable and the bum"); and that this suggests (to moi) that the piece has been imperfectly "translated" -- in one direction or the other. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Are there any concrete examples of where Lindskoog has definitely been shown to be <I>wrong</I>? As opposed, I mean to "not definitely shown to be right"? Handwriting analysis can (I think) fail to prove that something is a forgery, but it can't prove that it is genuine. It seems to me that her central accusation -- that Hooper massively exaggerated the length and intimacy of his friendship with Lewis -- would not now be contested by anyone; and it doesn't seem controversial to say that he has been, shall we say, less than scholarly in his handling of Lewis's MSS. Does this amount to proof of forgery? No. Does this inspire total confidence that things like the Toast preface are definitely authentic texts? No.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Lewis would certainly have had anecdotal evidence about American schools from his wife and stepsons, and from American students, and from his correspondents. It is odd that he doesn't refer to any concrete examples. One might reasonably ask what his source of knowledge about English schools was, as well: he went briefly to a minor public school which he hated, but was primarily taught by a private tutor, and presumably the students he came into contact with were primarily the brightest students at the countries most elite schools. (A state school boy winning a scholarship to Oxford wasn't impossible, but it was preposterously unlikely.) And he claimed not to read newspapers...Andrew Rilstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16934052271846235431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-61862389102712837412008-09-15T05:26:00.000+01:002008-09-15T05:26:00.000+01:00Well, municipal and authority are both from Latin ...Well, municipal and authority are both from Latin via Norman French, so there is the possibility that the U.S. has substituted a more Germanic phrase in its place, sure.Andrew Stevenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13453328821252013152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-57198375660518307572008-09-14T21:30:00.000+01:002008-09-14T21:30:00.000+01:00I am asking only on the off-chance but...Could thi...I am asking only on the off-chance but...<BR/><BR/>Could this have anything to do with something from the original German?Gavin Burrowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16347163260510316959noreply@blogger.com