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

Re: [mythsoc] Re: Alastair Fowler

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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.