Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [mythsoc] Re: Alastair Fowler

Expand Messages
  • John D Rateliff
    ... I m afraid I have no memory of this, and I m so busy finishing up my current project that I haven t had time to go back through the list archive to see who
    Message 1 of 17 , Apr 17, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      On Apr 14, 2006, at 10:27 AM, Joe R. Christopher wrote:
      > John D Rateliff, I think it was, mentioned Dr. Fowler's _Yale
      > Review_ piece
      > in which he mentioned reading "The Dark Tower" when Lewis was
      > alive. I
      > wrote to Dr. Fowler and asked two questions about the situation.

      I'm afraid I have no memory of this, and I'm so busy finishing up my
      current project that I haven't had time to go back through the list
      archive to see who did post it. Very glad that you've followed up on
      this, though, since I think it's a real discovery. Many thanks for
      sharing those excerpts from Professor Fowler's letter. Since the
      early chapters with the Stingerman had been explicitly singled out as
      the part that couldn't possibly be by Lewis, I think this really
      clinches it that the entire work is just what most people thought it
      all along: an unfinished but authentic fragment by CSL. The part
      about typescript is interesting but not crucial: Lewis may have made
      a typescript which does not survive (though I think this unlikely for
      an unfinished work), or Fowler might be confusing the loose leaf
      manuscript now in the Bodleian with the loose leaf typescript he says
      Fr. Hooper showed him. Hooper does say he showed the story to several
      of Lewis's friends, and it's unlikely that he loaned out the
      irreplaceable unique copy of the manuscript, so I imagine that as the
      first stage when editing the work he made a typescript for limited
      circulation while trying to find out more about the story's origin
      and date. I'm surprised that Fr. Hooper didn't cite Fowler as
      confirmation back in 1977, but then he never did say that Fr. Gervase
      Mathew was the only person who recognized it.
      I don't think that ultimately the 1938 vs. 1944-46 date can be
      definitively proven either way, unless and until more evidence turns
      up; I simply think the evidence is much stronger for the latter
      dating (with Tolkien's letter describing the story as the key). This
      memoir definitely rules out the 1950s date Jared had suggested, since
      Fowler makes clear that he read it in 1952 or very shortly thereafter
      and that it was then a piece Lewis had written some time before and
      abandoned. What I found most interesting is that from Fowler's
      account Lewis knew exactly where it was, and that CSL rated it with
      "After Ten Years" (which he also loaned A.F.) as a piece he'd started
      but not been able to complete; he clearly held onto both because he
      hoped that he would, someday, find the right way to tell that story.
      I wish we knew more about how Lewis organized his files. And who did
      prepare the typescripts of CSL's books? Did he really send manuscript
      to the printers?

      On Apr 14, 2006, at 11:49 AM, David Bratman wrote:
      > 1) When did Dr. Fowler read "The Dark Tower", both the time that
      > Lewis gave
      > it to him and the time that Hooper did? Does he say, either in his
      > letter
      > or the article? All that Joe quotes is "forty years ago," but this
      > must be
      > very approximate for his meeting with Lewis, as forty years ago
      > Lewis was
      > already dead.

      From the Yale Review piece, it's clear that this was sometime
      between 1952, when Fowler arrived at Oxford and asked Lewis to direct
      his thesis, and 1955 when Lewis left Oxford for Cambridge. After a
      little online research, I found it posted at

      http://www.solcon.nl/arendsmilde/cslewis/reflections/e-fowler.htm

      The significant section is in the following:


      "Jenny and I rented an attic at 2 Church Walk in North Oxford, the
      same house where the Spenserian Rudolf Gottfried stayed. From there I
      cycled to Magdalen for supervisions. Often Major Lewis sat typing in
      the large sitting room and directed me through to his brother in the
      smaller room. One winter morning I got there frozen; Lewis, wearing a
      dressing gown over his clothes, was engrossed in Astounding Science
      Fiction. Conversation turned to fantasy; I confessed I was trying to
      write one, myself, and had got blocked. He made me describe the
      setting (a paraworld with a slower time-lapse), then said, �You need
      two things for this sort of fiction. The first you already have: a
      world, a mise en sc�ne. But you also need a mythos or plot.� After
      that, Lewis was always keener to know how The Rest of Time was coming
      along than to read the next installment of dissertation. This was
      gratifying, of course, yet somehow depressing to a would-be academic
      author. But it was an article of faith with Lewis that writing
      fiction could never conflict with studying literature. Not that he
      always wrote without difficulty; sometimes he had to set a project
      aside for a long period. He showed me several unfinished or abandoned
      pieces (his notion of supervision included exchanging work in
      progress); these included �After Ten Years,� The Dark Tower, and Till
      We Have Faces. Another fragment, a time-travel story, had been
      aborted after only a few pages. Getting to the �other� world was a
      particular problem, he said; he had given up several stories at that
      stage. His unfamiliarity with scientific discourse may have played a
      part in this. The vehicles of transition in Out of the Silent Planet
      and Perelandra, although suggestive in other ways, are hardly
      plausible as scientific apparatus. In the Narnia stories Lewis turned
      to magical means of entry: teleportation rings from E. Nesbit and
      Tolkien, or else a terribly strange wardrobe.
      Once fully started, Lewis quickly wrote a more or less
      final version, like Anthony Trollope. Unlike Henry James (or
      Tolkien), he never drafted and redrafted. Nevill Coghill might have
      to make ten or more drafts of anything for publication; but when
      things went well Lewis would write only a rough copy and a fair copy
      (with one or two corrections per page). And that was it, except for
      scholarly books like the OHEL volume, which were tried out first as
      lectures. Even the final version would be in longhand; Lewis thought
      a noisy typewriter dulled the sense of rhythm. Fortunately, his
      writing was legible enough to go straight to the publisher, unless
      Warren typed it out. Obviously, composition was not so fast as
      writing; before committing to paper, he must have composed each work
      in his head, retaining it by some �power of memory� (as Tolkien
      called Lewis�s retentiveness of the spoken word). Lewis�s fluency
      suggests that he composed in paragraphs, as Robert Louis Stevenson
      did, and Edward Gibbon in his covered acacia walk."

      The whole piece is quite interesting, from the role Hugo Dyson played
      in putting in a good word for Fowler before Lewis would agree to
      supervise his research to Fowler's own time-travel story THE REST OF
      TIME. Does anyone know if this has been published? If so, it could
      provide the so-called L'Engle link, though personally I've come to
      believe that if there is any influence between the Ransom books and A
      WRINKLE IN TIME it would be from L'Engle being influenced,
      consciously or not, by the severed head scenes in THAT HIDEOUS STRENGTH.
      As for "forty years ago", that would be about right for the
      period when Fr. Hooper was asking Lewis's surviving friends if they
      recognized the fragment, but I took it as 'mind you, all this was
      more than forty years ago' and so would not be perturbed by small
      inconsistencies.

      --JDR





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • John D Rateliff
      ... Did a little more mulling over this in the last week or so, and think the issue really is resolved. We have Fowler s word for it that the first half of the
      Message 2 of 17 , Apr 26, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        On Apr 14, 2006, at 10:27 AM, Joe R. Christopher wrote:
        > I think Dr. Fowler's reply decides the fact that Lewis wrote the
        > opening of
        > the fragment. On the basis of what he writes, a controversy may still
        > exist over whether what is currently published has been padded or not.


        Did a little more mulling over this in the last week or so, and think
        the issue really is resolved. We have Fowler's word for it that the
        first half of the text existed and was acknowledged by Lewis in his
        lifetime. We have Lewis's own copy of the book that served as the
        main source for the second half of the book, with CSL's annotations,
        in the Wade collection at Wheaton. We have Fr. Gervase Mathews'
        recollection of Lewis reading it to the Inklings. We have Tolkien's
        statement that Lewis was planning to write such a novel. We have the
        manuscript, in Lewis's handwriting, found among Lewis's papers after
        his death. We have the Bodleian's acceptance of the manuscript as a
        genuine work by Lewis. Against this we have accusations that the
        manuscript, while it may or may not be in Lewis's handwriting, might
        not be wholly Lewis's work--which would make it an extreme anomoly; I
        don't think we have any evidence that Lewis ever copied over other
        author's work into his own handwriting while adding his own bits to
        it, all without indicating in any way his own contributions. Perhaps
        someday a letter by Lewis mentioning the work will turn up (given the
        thousands of letters he wrote, and the number of them still
        unaccounted for, I think this entirely possible); till then the
        weight of evidence is that it's the real thing.

        Speaking of Fowler, I've been going through a lot of my old notebooks
        lately and came across an interesting excerpt from an article which
        quotes from a 1961 letter CSL wrote to Fowler about who'd they
        nominate for a Nobel Prize, given the chance. After noting that
        Mauriac already had it, Lewis suggests "Frost? Eliot? Tolkien?
        E.M.Forster?" Granted, he's forgetting here that TSE already won in
        1948, but still it's an indication, if we needed it, of the high
        regard he held for JRRT's work.

        JDR

        Current Reading: ORTNIT & WOLFDIETRICH: Two Medieval Romances






        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • David Bratman
        ... Joe said that part of the issue is resolved, but part of it is not. I think he s still right about that. I am not going to argue that The Dark Tower as
        Message 3 of 17 , Apr 26, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          At 10:53 AM 4/26/2006 -0700, John D Rateliff wrote:
          >On Apr 14, 2006, at 10:27 AM, Joe R. Christopher wrote:
          >> I think Dr. Fowler's reply decides the fact that Lewis wrote the
          >> opening of
          >> the fragment. On the basis of what he writes, a controversy may still
          >> exist over whether what is currently published has been padded or not.
          >
          >Did a little more mulling over this in the last week or so, and think
          >the issue really is resolved.

          Joe said that part of the issue is resolved, but part of it is not. I
          think he's still right about that. I am not going to argue that The Dark
          Tower as published is a forged work. I am, however, going to argue that,
          given Walter Hooper's known unreliability, the open questions are still
          reasonably open.


          >We have Fowler's word for it that the
          >first half of the text existed and was acknowledged by Lewis in his
          >lifetime.

          Yes, we now have reliable testimony that - at the very least - a work
          roughly fitting the description of "The Dark Tower" was written by Lewis.
          (The hesitation is to acknowledge the doubt that Fowler can verify that the
          published text is identical with the one he read in ms. many years before.)
          This strikes me as very strong evidence indeed, but not conclusive about
          the work in hand.


          >We have Lewis's own copy of the book that served as the
          >main source for the second half of the book, with CSL's annotations,
          >in the Wade collection at Wheaton.

          What is this, and how do we know that Lewis actually used it for The Dark
          Tower, and that a forger with access to Lewis's books did not?


          >We have Fr. Gervase Mathews'
          >recollection of Lewis reading it to the Inklings.

          No, we do not. We have Hooper's statement that Mathew (by then deceased)
          had at some earlier date told him that. And that is not enough. The Dark
          Tower may be authentic, but that does not make Hooper any more trustworthy.
          Also, we have the curious fact that the reading is dated 1939-40, which
          for two separate reasons is quite probably incorrect.


          >We have Tolkien's
          >statement that Lewis was planning to write such a novel.

          We do, but that is of far more help in dating Lewis's plan than it is in
          deciding if the work in hand is something he actually wrote.


          >We have the
          >manuscript, in Lewis's handwriting, found among Lewis's papers after
          >his death.

          We also have the possibility that it's a forgery. We have numerous
          arguments over whether that's possible or not, with the same experts quoted
          on both sides, and neither side willing (or able?) to demonstrate that the
          other side is lying.


          >We have the Bodleian's acceptance of the manuscript as a
          >genuine work by Lewis.

          We do? The presence of the manuscript in the Bodleian collection is not
          evidence of its authenticity. It's evidence of their taking Hooper's
          donation at his word.


          >Against this we have accusations that the
          >manuscript, while it may or may not be in Lewis's handwriting, might
          >not be wholly Lewis's work--which would make it an extreme anomoly;

          If it isn't Lewis's handwriting, then whether it's Lewis's composition is
          entirely irrelevant to the question of anomaly. If it is Lewis's
          handwriting, then the question of borrowed composition hardly comes up, at
          least in my mind.

          And I still want to know what happened to the typescript that Hooper
          supposedly had. If it was a typescript that Hooper himself made or had
          made from the manuscript, it's of no importance. But if it was a
          typescript he got from the Lewis estate, the absence of any reference to it
          in the documentary description of the work is most surprising and disturbing.


          >Perhaps
          >someday a letter by Lewis mentioning the work will turn up (given the
          >thousands of letters he wrote, and the number of them still
          >unaccounted for, I think this entirely possible);

          Perhaps. But a letter, unless the description of the plot is unusually
          detailed, will not prove that the work in hand is authentic. And we don't
          need a Lewis letter to prove that he wrote _something_ fitting this general
          description. We already have sufficient proof of that.


          >till then the
          >weight of evidence is that it's the real thing.

          I agree, especially since the principal arguments against its authenticity
          are 1) that Hooper is untrustworthy (which he is, but that's not evidence
          he forged any given item); 2) that The Dark Tower is too bad a work to be
          by Lewis (which is nonsensical and untrue, and in any case its badness is
          surely why he abandoned it).

          But "the weight of evidence" is not the same thing as "the issue really is
          resolved." Weight, yes; resolved, no.

          - David Bratman
        • John D Rateliff
          On Apr 26, 2006, at 11:32 AM, David Bratman wrote: ... Here s a question: what would it take to resolve the issue for you? ...
          Message 4 of 17 , Apr 30, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            On Apr 26, 2006, at 11:32 AM, David Bratman wrote:
            <begin snippets>
            > . . . we now have reliable testimony that - at the very least - a
            > work
            > roughly fitting the description of "The Dark Tower" was written by
            > Lewis.

            > we don't need a Lewis letter to prove that he wrote _something_
            > fitting this general
            > description. We already have sufficient proof of that.

            > . . . This strikes me as very strong evidence indeed, but not
            > conclusive about
            > the work in hand.

            > . . . the open questions are still reasonably open.
            <end snippets>

            Here's a question: what would it take to resolve the issue for you?


            >> We have Lewis's own copy of the book that served as the
            >> main source for the second half of the book, with CSL's annotations,
            >> in the Wade collection at Wheaton.
            > What is this, and how do we know that Lewis actually used it for
            > The Dark
            > Tower, and that a forger with access to Lewis's books did not?

            The book is AN EXPERIMENT WITH TIME, by J. W. Dunne. Lewis's copy was
            not one of those his five friends kept from his library but went
            instead with the bulk of his books to form a school's collection, the
            remnant of which was purchased by the Wade more than two decades
            later. CSL's copy is now in Wheaton. We know Lewis used it, because
            he marked it up as he read it. Since the books were sold shortly
            after Lewis's death, it means that copy was not available to THE DARK
            TOWER'S editor during the period the work was supposedly forged.


            > We also have the possibility that it's a forgery. We have numerous
            > arguments over whether that's possible or not, with the same
            > experts quoted
            > on both sides, and neither side willing (or able?) to demonstrate
            > that the
            > other side is lying.

            Not a serious possibility, simply the unsupported assertion from an
            unreliable source. If we're going to dismiss any evidence that passed
            through Fr. Hooper's hands, such as Fr. Gervase Mathews' account of
            Lewis's reading the work to the Inklings, on the grounds that Hooper
            is untrustworthy, then we also have to throw out any evidence put
            forward by Lindskoog, or any that passed through her hands.


            >> We have the Bodleian's acceptance of the manuscript as a
            >> genuine work by Lewis.
            >
            > We do? The presence of the manuscript in the Bodleian collection
            > is not
            > evidence of its authenticity. It's evidence of their taking Hooper's
            > donation at his word.

            Yes, we do. I asked them about this when I spent a day with the
            manuscript myself in 1992. The reason they've never instigated a full-
            scale testing is that they've never heard any credible evidence from
            any reliable source that would cast doubt upon its authenticity. A
            few early claims challenging the work were easily disproven by an
            informal examination by Bodleian staff, and they've never been given
            a good reason to revisit the matter. Plus, they're busy people, with
            lots of unprocessed materials that need their attention rather than
            addressing charges from conspiracy theorists.

            --JDR

            current reading: THE RING OF WORDS: TOLKIEN AND THE OXFORD ENGLISH
            DICTIONARY (Gilliver, Marshall, & Weiner).
          • Carl F. Hostetter
            ... And David can say the same thing about Hooper s story of provenance for the text. Hooper s proven himself unreliable on matters of his relationship with
            Message 5 of 17 , May 1, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              On May 1, 2006, at 1:08 AM, John D Rateliff wrote:

              > simply the unsupported assertion from an unreliable source.

              And David can say the same thing about Hooper's story of provenance
              for the text. Hooper's proven himself unreliable on matters of his
              relationship with Lewis: an inveterate exaggerator (to say the least
              and to put it in the nicest possible light).

              > The reason they've never instigated a full-scale testing is that
              > they've never heard any credible evidence from
              > any reliable source that would cast doubt upon its authenticity.

              Then they're apparently unaware of Hooper's tendency to exaggerate
              (at best) his relationship with Lewis, which is more than sufficient
              to call into question any testimony of provenance he provides. The
              fact that the Bodleian staff are unaware of Hooper's tendencies and
              thus do not question his testimony hardly constitutes authoritative
              support for the manuscript's authenticity: it just means they haven't
              done anything to test the word of Hooper that it is authentic.

              Carl

              (Who thinks _The Dark Tower_ is most likely authentic, but that
              there's no reason to take Hooper's word on anything, and plenty of
              reasons not to do so.)
            • David Bratman
              ... You mean, convince me that there s no reasonable possibility it was forged? A manuscript, functionally identical with the printed copy, that comes with a
              Message 6 of 17 , May 1, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                At 10:08 PM 4/30/2006 -0700, John D Rateliff wrote:

                >Here's a question: what would it take to resolve the issue for you?

                You mean, convince me that there's no reasonable possibility it was forged?
                A manuscript, functionally identical with the printed copy, that comes
                with a solid provenance and no possibility it could have gone through the
                hands of Walter Hooper or anyone associated with him, which means it would
                have to have been given by Lewis himself to someone else, someone not Owen
                Barfield.


                >The book is AN EXPERIMENT WITH TIME, by J. W. Dunne. Lewis's copy was
                >not one of those his five friends kept from his library but went
                >instead with the bulk of his books to form a school's collection

                ... where for decades they were available, not far from Oxford, for
                literally anyone (including Walter Hooper) to look at, and a large number
                of them disappeared, as happens to books kept in unsecured libraries, and
                what was left is accurately called by you a "remnant" (the relevancy of
                this to Dunne's book, which did not disappear, is that it could have been
                removed and put back without anybody noticing) ...

                >the remnant of which was purchased by the Wade more than two decades
                >later. CSL's copy is now in Wheaton. We know Lewis used it, because
                >he marked it up as he read it. Since the books were sold shortly
                >after Lewis's death

                ... after they were sorted by one Walter Hooper, according to the testimony
                of Doug Gresham ...

                >it means that copy was not available to THE DARK
                >TOWER'S editor during the period the work was supposedly forged.

                ... no, it means that it was very easily available to The Dark Tower's
                editor, the aforementioned Walter Hooper. Not one whit of your history of
                this copy would have made it unavailable to Walter Hooper at any time
                before it was sold to the Wade.


                >Not a serious possibility, simply the unsupported assertion from an
                >unreliable source. If we're going to dismiss any evidence that passed
                >through Fr. Hooper's hands, such as Fr. Gervase Mathews' account of
                >Lewis's reading the work to the Inklings, on the grounds that Hooper
                >is untrustworthy, then we also have to throw out any evidence put
                >forward by Lindskoog, or any that passed through her hands.

                That follows not at all. Kay Lindskoog once made a foolish remark about
                being "mentally married" to Lewis, and she later played an even more
                foolish practical joke passing a forgery off on Stephen Scofield. But she
                didn't let the forgery pass unremarked into the general thread of Lewis
                scholarship. She never, at any time, spent over a decade consistently
                misleading people as to the extent of her acquaintanceship with Lewis. She
                never published articles trying to cast doubt on Warren Lewis's sanity.
                She never did a whole bunch of disturbing things that Walter Hooper did.
                There is no comparison between them.

                Nor am I dismissing the account about Mathew (again, his name was Mathew,
                not Mathews). I do not believe that it must be a lie because Hooper said
                it. I do say, however, that there are at least two good grounds for
                believing that the date is wrong, and that the Mathew story in any form
                does not verify anything that the Fowler account doesn't already verify.


                >> We do? The presence of the manuscript in the Bodleian collection
                >> is not
                >> evidence of its authenticity. It's evidence of their taking Hooper's
                >> donation at his word.
                >
                >Yes, we do. I asked them about this when I spent a day with the
                >manuscript myself in 1992. The reason they've never instigated a full-
                >scale testing is that they've never heard any credible evidence from
                >any reliable source that would cast doubt upon its authenticity. A
                >few early claims challenging the work were easily disproven by an
                >informal examination by Bodleian staff, and they've never been given
                >a good reason to revisit the matter. Plus, they're busy people, with
                >lots of unprocessed materials that need their attention rather than
                >addressing charges from conspiracy theorists.

                Well, if they're so busy, and if they are inclined to dismiss legitimate
                concerns as "conspiracy theorists," then that does not provide any evidence
                of the manuscript's authenticity whatever. Instead, it provides evidence
                of what I said it provides evidence of: evidence of their taking Hooper's
                donation at his word.

                That "The Dark Tower" is authentic I think most likely on the basis of the
                evidence. But the arguments put forward by the defenders are so weak as to
                make me wonder.

                DB
              • Patrick Wynne
                On May 2, 2006, at 1:07 AM, David Bratman wrote, in reply to John Rateliff s comment that If we re going to dismiss any evidence that passed through Fr.
                Message 7 of 17 , May 2, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  On May 2, 2006, at 1:07 AM, David Bratman wrote, in reply to
                  John Rateliff's comment that "If we're going to dismiss any
                  evidence that passed through Fr. Hooper's hands ... on the
                  grounds that Hooper is untrustworthy, then we also have to
                  throw out any evidence put forward by Lindskoog, or any that
                  passed through her hands" :

                  > That follows not at all. Kay Lindskoog once made a foolish
                  > remark about being "mentally married" to Lewis, and she
                  > later played an even more foolish practical joke passing a
                  > forgery off on Stephen Scofield. But she didn't let the forgery
                  > pass unremarked into the general thread of Lewis scholarship.
                  > She never, at any time, spent over a decade consistently
                  > misleading people as to the extent of her acquaintanceship
                  > with Lewis. She never published articles trying to cast doubt
                  > on Warren Lewis's sanity. She never did a whole bunch of
                  > disturbing things that Walter Hooper did. There is no comparison
                  > between them.

                  Kathryn gives a full account of her ill-conceived (and self-admittedly
                  "foolish") hoax on Stephen Scofield in her book "Fakes, Frauds &
                  Other Malarkey: 301 Amazing Stories and How Not to be Fooled"
                  (Zondervan, 1993). It appears in a four-page concluding chapter
                  entitled "A Hoaxer's Epilogue" (pp. 275-78), which she concludes
                  with the comment:

                  "Thus I learned that although it is surprisingly easy to toss off silly
                  forgeries, it is hard to avoid doing accidental harm with them and
                  absolutely impossible to overestimate human gullibility."

                  Has Walter Hooper EVER been this forthcoming about his known
                  "exaggerations"? Not that I've heard. There is indeed no comparison
                  to be made between Lindskoog's openness and Walter Hooper's
                  apparent lack thereof.

                  -- Pat
                • John D Rateliff
                  Came across this on Thursday and forgot to post it: turns out Twain s The Curious Republic of Gondour was reprinted in 1984 in David Ketterer s edition of
                  Message 8 of 17 , May 2, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Came across this on Thursday and forgot to post it: turns out Twain's
                    "The Curious Republic of Gondour" was reprinted in 1984 in David
                    Ketterer's edition of THE SCIENCE FICTION OF MARK TWAIN; saw a trade
                    paperback of this, under the title TALES OF WONDER, in the university
                    bookstore while waiting for Elizabeth Moon's author reading to start.
                    So it's readily available for anyone who wants to pick up that
                    collection.


                    Speaking of Gondour/Gondor/Ond, thanks to a friend I now have a copy
                    of "Stone Towers", Carl & Pat's article on Tolkien's real-world
                    source for "OND" = stone (from MYTHLORE #74, 1993). It's an excellent
                    piece, and if I'd known of its existence I'd certainly have cited it
                    in my essay in the Blackwelder festschrift. The only point I disagree
                    with hinges on their identification of John Rhys's CELTIC BRITAIN
                    with the "small book (professedly for the young" that Tolkien said he
                    read when eight years old, and their comment (Endnote #5) on how
                    standards on writing for the young have shifted so much since
                    Tolkien's childhood. Rhys's book is certainly small (its pages
                    measuring about six inches tall and four inches wide--i.e. pocket-
                    sized) but he explicitly states that he is writing for "the general
                    reader" (Preface, page iv), and there is no indication either in his
                    book nor in the list of other books in the series in the back to
                    imply that it is a work for children (in fact, v. much the
                    contrary*). Therefore we either have to conclude that (a) Tolkien
                    read the book at age eight and so considered it "for the young", not
                    realizing how advanced a reader he had been, (b) Tolkien read a book
                    "professedly for the young" which derived from Rhys's book--that is,
                    some popularization of his ideas that has yet to be identified, or
                    (c) Tolkien read Rhys's book, but not quite as early as he later
                    thought in the letter he wrote when he was seventy-nine recalling the
                    fact. Of these, I think (c) the most likely, since we have plenty of
                    other evidence that Tolkien had a tendency to predate events,
                    thinking that they had occurred before they actually did.


                    *e.g., SINAI: FROM THE FOURTH EGYPTIAN DYNASTY TO THE PRESENT DAY, by
                    Henry S. Palmer, Major R.E., F.R.A.S., part of the "Ancient History
                    from the Monuments" series "chiefly intended to illustrate the Sacred
                    Scriptures by the results of recent Monumental Researches in the
                    East", or the books on EPICUREANISM and STOICISM, in "A Series of
                    Books which deals with the Chief Systems of Ancient Thought, not
                    merely as dry matters of History, but as having a bearin on Modern
                    Speculation".
                  • Carl F. Hostetter
                    ... I ve had much the same further thoughts on the matter since writing that article, and would certainly tell my self of 13 years ago not to be so firm in the
                    Message 9 of 17 , May 2, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On May 2, 2006, at 3:36 PM, John D Rateliff wrote:

                      > Therefore we either have to conclude that (a) Tolkien
                      > read the book at age eight and so considered it "for the young", not
                      > realizing how advanced a reader he had been, (b) Tolkien read a book
                      > "professedly for the young" which derived from Rhys's book--that is,
                      > some popularization of his ideas that has yet to be identified, or
                      > (c) Tolkien read Rhys's book, but not quite as early as he later
                      > thought in the letter he wrote when he was seventy-nine recalling the
                      > fact. Of these, I think (c) the most likely, since we have plenty of
                      > other evidence that Tolkien had a tendency to predate events,
                      > thinking that they had occurred before they actually did.

                      I've had much the same further thoughts on the matter since writing
                      that article, and would certainly tell my self of 13 years ago not to
                      be so firm in the judgement! I've kept my eye out for any other
                      possible source for Tolkien's learning of Pre-Celtic" _ond_ ever
                      since, but have yet to find even one other mention of it.

                      I would add a further possibility: Tolkien read Rhys's book as a
                      child, but misremembered its nature when describing it 70+ years later.

                      Carl
                    • John D Rateliff
                      ... I would give Lindskoog more credit for openness if the account you refer to were actually truthful. Unfortunately, it s a self-serving melange of
                      Message 10 of 17 , May 3, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On May 2, 2006, at 5:38 AM, Patrick Wynne wrote:
                        > Kathryn gives a full account of her ill-conceived (and self-admittedly
                        > "foolish") hoax on Stephen Scofield in her book "Fakes, Frauds &
                        > Other Malarkey: 301 Amazing Stories and How Not to be Fooled"
                        > (Zondervan, 1993). It appears in a four-page concluding chapter
                        > entitled "A Hoaxer's Epilogue" (pp. 275-78), which she concludes
                        > with the comment:
                        >
                        > "Thus I learned that although it is surprisingly easy to toss off
                        > silly
                        > forgeries, it is hard to avoid doing accidental harm with them and
                        > absolutely impossible to overestimate human gullibility."
                        >
                        > Has Walter Hooper EVER been this forthcoming about his known
                        > "exaggerations"? Not that I've heard. There is indeed no comparison
                        > to be made between Lindskoog's openness and Walter Hooper's
                        > apparent lack thereof.

                        I would give Lindskoog more credit for "openness" if the account you
                        refer to were actually truthful. Unfortunately, it's a self-serving
                        melange of untruths, as consultation with the original newspaper
                        articles published at the time reveals.
                        So, Fr. Hooper silently corrected the record without ever
                        confessing to having misled people, while Lindskoog published a false
                        story rewriting history to excuse her behavior.
                        What a world, what a world.

                        --John R.

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Carl F. Hostetter
                        ... Could you cite some examples of these untruths, and of the actual facts, to illustrate this claim for those of us who don t have those newspaper articles?
                        Message 11 of 17 , May 4, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On May 4, 2006, at 1:07 AM, John D Rateliff wrote:

                          > On May 2, 2006, at 5:38 AM, Patrick Wynne wrote:
                          >> Kathryn gives a full account of her ill-conceived (and self-
                          >> admittedly "foolish") hoax on Stephen Scofield in her book "Fakes,
                          >> Frauds & Other Malarkey: 301 Amazing Stories and How Not to be
                          >> Fooled" (Zondervan, 1993). It appears in a four-page concluding
                          >> chapter entitled "A Hoaxer's Epilogue" (pp. 275-78), which she
                          >> concludes
                          >> with the comment:
                          >>
                          >> "Thus I learned that although it is surprisingly easy to toss off
                          >> silly forgeries, it is hard to avoid doing accidental harm with
                          >> them and absolutely impossible to overestimate human gullibility."
                          >>
                          >> Has Walter Hooper EVER been this forthcoming about his known
                          >> "exaggerations"? Not that I've heard. There is indeed no
                          >> comparison to be made between Lindskoog's openness and Walter
                          >> Hooper's apparent lack thereof.
                          >
                          > I would give Lindskoog more credit for "openness" if the account
                          > you refer to were actually truthful. Unfortunately, it's a self-
                          > serving melange of untruths, as consultation with the original
                          > newspaper articles published at the time reveals.

                          Could you cite some examples of these untruths, and of the actual
                          facts, to illustrate this claim for those of us who don't have those
                          newspaper articles?

                          > So, Fr. Hooper silently corrected the record without ever
                          > confessing to having misled people,

                          Corrections Hooper would _never_ have offered were it not for
                          Lindskoog's work.

                          > while Lindskoog published a false story rewriting history

                          So you say.

                          > to excuse her behavior.

                          As Pat notes, she called the behavior "foolish". That doesn't sound
                          like excusing it to me.

                          As I see it, Hooper consistently misrepresented himself in public in
                          order to promote himself and his supposed expertise on Lewis's life.
                          I have no reason to think that he didn't also misrepresent himself in
                          private in order to insinuate himself into the position of literary
                          executor of a man he'd known for all of, what, two, three weeks? --
                          a position that no doubt comes with not inconsiderable remunerations,
                          financial and otherwise, and from which he has repeatedly abused his
                          authority in order to trash Lewis's brother, friends, and actual
                          assistants -- and about whom, so far as I know, he'd written almost
                          nothing of any significance beforehand. I wouldn't personally crow
                          about Hooper's behavior or character, esp. not as being at all
                          superior to Lindskoog's.

                          > What a world, what a world.

                          As you say.

                          Carl
                        • Kevin Bowring
                          I have frequently heard these criticisms of Hooper. What are the major sources for this? Kevin Bowring
                          Message 12 of 17 , May 4, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I have frequently heard these criticisms of Hooper. What are the major sources for this?
                            Kevin Bowring
                          • Patrick Wynne
                            ... For starters, see Kathryn Lindskoog s book Light in the Shadowlands: Protecting the Real C.S. Lewis (Multnomah, 1994; ISBN 0880706953). If your local
                            Message 13 of 17 , May 4, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On May 4, 2006, at 6:56 AM, Kevin Bowring wrote:

                              > I have frequently heard these criticisms of Hooper. What are the
                              > major sources for this?
                              > Kevin Bowring

                              For starters, see Kathryn Lindskoog's book "Light in the Shadowlands:
                              Protecting the Real C.S. Lewis" (Multnomah, 1994; ISBN 0880706953).
                              If your local library doesn't have a copy, new and used ones are
                              available
                              on Amazon.com beginning at $2.99.

                              -- Pat




                              >
                              > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
                              > ~-->
                              > Everything you need is one click away. Make Yahoo! your home page
                              > now.
                              > http://us.click.yahoo.com/AHchtC/4FxNAA/yQLSAA/DtIolB/TM
                              > --------------------------------------------------------------------
                              > ~->
                              >
                              > The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
                              > Yahoo! Groups Links
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >



                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • John D Rateliff
                              ... The best place to start would be Lindskoog s 1978 article in CHRISTIANITY & LITERATURE; I believe the title was Some Problems in C. S. Lewis Scholarship .
                              Message 14 of 17 , May 4, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On May 4, 2006, at 4:56 AM, Kevin Bowring wrote:
                                > I have frequently heard these criticisms of Hooper. What are the
                                > major sources for this?
                                > Kevin Bowring

                                The best place to start would be Lindskoog's 1978 article in
                                CHRISTIANITY & LITERATURE; I believe the title was "Some Problems in
                                C. S. Lewis Scholarship". Then came her 1988 book THE C. S. LEWIS
                                HOAX. An expanded edition of this came out in 2001 under the title
                                SLEUTHING C. S. LEWIS. She also started her own journal (THE LEWIS
                                LEGACY) which was largely devoted to further presentation of her
                                case, and many issues and articles from it are available online
                                courtesy of the Discovery Institute (a leading Creationist thinktank
                                right here in Seattle who have hosted several CSL events). A quick
                                Google search should lead you to an interesting selection of pieces
                                by her, as well as many challenges to her claims, enabling you to
                                read about it first-hand rather than relying on summaries of who said
                                what by myself and others (returning to primary sources: always a
                                good thing).
                                Hope this helps.
                                --John R.
                              • Kevin Bowring
                                Thanks everyone. Kevin
                                Message 15 of 17 , May 4, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Thanks everyone.
                                  Kevin


                                  | On Thu, 4 May 2006 10:57:36 -0700
                                  | John D Rateliff <sacnoth@...> wrote:
                                  | On May 4, 2006, at 4:56 AM, Kevin Bowring wrote:
                                  | > I have frequently heard these criticisms of Hooper. What are the
                                  | > major sources for this?
                                  | > Kevin Bowring
                                  |
                                  | The best place to start would be Lindskoog's 1978 article in
                                  | CHRISTIANITY & LITERATURE; I believe the title was "Some Problems in
                                  | C. S. Lewis Scholarship". Then came her 1988 book THE C. S. LEWIS
                                  | HOAX. An expanded edition of this came out in 2001 under the title
                                  | SLEUTHING C. S. LEWIS. She also started her own journal (THE LEWIS
                                  | LEGACY) which was largely devoted to further presentation of her
                                  | case, and many issues and articles from it are available online
                                  | courtesy of the Discovery Institute (a leading Creationist thinktank
                                  | right here in Seattle who have hosted several CSL events). A quick
                                  | Google search should lead you to an interesting selection of pieces
                                  | by her, as well as many challenges to her claims, enabling you to
                                  | read about it first-hand rather than relying on summaries of who said
                                  | what by myself and others (returning to primary sources: always a
                                  | good thing).
                                  | Hope this helps.
                                  | --John R.
                                  |
                                  |
                                  |
                                  |
                                  |
                                  |
                                  | The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
                                  | Yahoo! Groups Links
                                  |
                                  |
                                  |
                                  |
                                  |
                                  |
                                  |
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.