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

Re: [mythsoc] Re: Alastair Fowler

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 17 , Apr 26 10:53 AM
    View Source
    • 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 2 of 17 , Apr 26 11:32 AM
      View Source
      • 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 3 of 17 , Apr 30 10:08 PM
        View Source
        • 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 4 of 17 , May 1, 2006
          View Source
          • 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 5 of 17 , May 1, 2006
            View Source
            • 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 6 of 17 , May 2, 2006
              View Source
              • 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 7 of 17 , May 2, 2006
                View Source
                • 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 8 of 17 , May 2, 2006
                  View Source
                  • 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 9 of 17 , May 3, 2006
                    View Source
                    • 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 10 of 17 , May 4, 2006
                      View Source
                      • 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 11 of 17 , May 4, 2006
                        View Source
                        • 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 12 of 17 , May 4, 2006
                          View Source
                          • 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 13 of 17 , May 4, 2006
                            View Source
                            • 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 14 of 17 , May 4, 2006
                              View Source
                              • 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.