Into the Wardrobe

I'd like to add a couple more comments about an certain issue, mainly because it has been talked so much about on these forums in the past. It is the "burned steadily for three days" aspect of Hooper's supposedly controversial "bonfire" story. In the past here Larry Gilman has made much about this time period of three days, claiming it would take an unbelievable mound of papers to make a bonfire burn steadily for three days (even providing a calculated estimate of the astounding amount it would take).

This assumes that the bonfire's only purpose or fuel was the burning of the papers from Lewis' study. But the context, as Hopper points out, is that after C.S. Lewis died, "Lewis's brother, Major W.H. Lewis, began clearing out the Kilns (the family house) preparatory to moving into a smaller house...." Here is the pertinent section from Hooper's preface to The Dark Tower: "...Major Lewis, after setting aside those papers which had a special significance for him, began disposing of the others. Thus it was that a great many things which I was never able to identify found their way on to a bonfire which burned steadily for three days."

I suppose one could interpret this as meaning that the bonfire was composed only of Lewis papers. But it seems far more likely to me that it simply means that the papers were disposed of by putting them onto a bonfire that already existed for other purposes, and the three days reference was to suggest that there were quite a few things (not necessarily just papers) at the Kilns' clearing that needed disposing of, and perhaps also to suggest that there was ample time during the life of the bonfire for the papers to have been burned during the clearing out.

I certainly have no more information and cannot say definitely what happened. I'm only saying that one possible (and very likely, in my opinion) interpretation allows for an explanation that requires no exaggeration or lying.

Of course the whole issue of the bonfire itself is a major source of contention in the whole forgery affair. And in fact, the "date" example in my earlier post relates directly to this (by the way, I wrote in that earlier post, "...quoting from a letter where Lewis writes something like 'I look forward to meeting you...' and claims that this indicates that Lewis had never met Hooper before". The "Lewis" here is Warnie Lewis, Jack's brother and the supposedly "first" meeting referred to is between Warnie and Hooper, not Jack and Hooper). The exact wording of KL's footnote about the letter in question is "In context it is impossible to read this as meaning anything other than a first meeting." If KL's methods of interpretation are in question (as the examples I've provided suggest to me), then if that line does not necessarily indicate a first meeting, the whole issue about the discovery of the manuscript collapses. Again, I don't know if it is true or not, but the degree of certainty that many Hoax believers hold about the issue is unwarranted in my opinion.

--Stanley

Wow, this has been an immensely fascinating discussion. This is one of the most in-depth analyses I've ever read of the WH/KL debate, and also one of the most diplomatically handled debates I've ever read on any forum, anywhere.

My thoughts:

I loved Past Watchful Dragons. I'm shocked that so many people have bad vibes about Walter Hooper. He was in a Lewis documentary a few years ago (The Magic Never Ends, perhaps?) and he seemed like the nicest old fellow to me. Of course, appearances can be decieving--but I'm shocked that people are rubbed the wrong way by him at first glance.

Anyway, I never read Lindsoog's book, so I won't pretend to understand all of her arguments. But either she posted here at one point, or someone quoted something from one of her books at one point. So I'll comment on that which I know.

The thrust of Lindsoog's argument seemed to be: "This can't be Lewis' writing, because it's no good. And it differs from other things that Lewis had done before." Those, to me, seem the two strongest arguments in favor of the authenticity of the works.

Here's what I mean: if DT is no good, nothing more than that lends credence to the theory that Lewis didn't like it himself, and stuffed it in a drawer and abandoned it. Also, a Lewis forger would want to use as many familiar ideas and settings to copy the Lewis style as possible. The fact that DT does differ from other things that Lewis did before, and strongly at times, seems to indicate that Lewis was trying to experiment with new ideas, as he always did. The forger's problem would be that he emulated too many Lewis cliches, not that he pursued too many new directions.

For that matter, if someone else forged this, why not just finish the story? If you're going to forge a "lost" story, why not finish the thing and give the audience some feeling of satisfaction? This fragment seems to indicate that Lewis simply lost his way on that story.

As someone else noted, it makes no sense to say that Lewis would not have made himself a main character, since he inserted himself in other ways into the other space books, and since Ransom himself is only a supporting character in THS. Obviously, Lewis liked the shifting perspectives in his space stories.

So, that's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it, until/unless some more pressing evidence presents itself.

Incidentally, if Lewis did write this, I would have been very happy to read more, if he could have gotten past his writer's block. The scene with the first glimpse of the Stingingmen is as creepy and nightmarish as Jane's dreams in THS, or the Dark Island in VDT. It's Lewis (assuming it's him) at his best.