Talk:C. S. Lewis

Criticism

I removed the criticism section from the article. I have no POV one way or the other on Lewis, it just seemed that the criticism section was thrown in to "balance" the article. It started by claiming that his Narnia works had been widely criticized but provided no citation to prove this. It then list a few very specific complaints on Lewis from some minor literary individuals. I have no problem, of course, with some one restoring the section if they can show that the criticism had a major impact on his work or its legacy in the public eye, because from what I gathered from the section it did neither. The section should also be properly sourced. I removed it rather than just make this post because I think it best to err on the side of caution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.252.49.152 (talk) 05:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

The section was more extensive and contained specific referenced criticisms, but this was moved to the Chronicles of Narnia article (which is why readers are directed there for further information). I've replaced the section, and added a reference. I think more than one reference would be untidy looking, but they are available in the Narnia article if anyone disagrees. Martin 00:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I liked the rewrite of the criticism page much better than the original. I removed a little of the rewrite, specifficaly the part that referred to criticism of his Christian apologetics. I removed it simply because the figures quoted are extremely minor figures whose whole career is based around criticism of that sort. If anyone can come up with a better known writer or religious figure for a criticism, that would be great. I will be looking myself. `129.252.205.245 01:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see the logic of this. Beversluis is a serious philosopher and his criticisms are well argued. Joshi is more of a popular writer but he is at least as serious on the topic as Lewis, and if someones "whole career is based around criticism of that sort" then perhaps they actually know what they are on about. In any case, the link to the Trilemma page leads to a more detailed examination of the issues. Rbreen 14:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

New gripe: the section that starts with, "However, Lewis himself combats against this..." [which seems like poor grammar] and ends with, "...a system which must be heeded." seems to be original opinions of someone trying to criticize the criticism in situ. (Phrases like "fails to realize," "nonetheless," and "of course" mark it as such.) I propose that it be removed. 98.194.89.153 (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Betjeman

The bad feeling between CS Lewis and the then undergraduate John Betjeman is well known, and I was interested to see Lewis's dislike of English flippancy mentioned in the article, because this was a characteristic he found most irritating in Betjeman. Betjeman responded in kind, referring in one of his poems to "St CS Lewis's church" and in another as follows:

"Objectively our Common Room/ Is like a small Athenian state -/ Except for Lewis: he's all right,/ But do you think he's quite first rate?"

It should be borne in mind that the author of the above stanza failed to get a degree, whereas Lewis got a double first. Millbanks 22:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Millbanks 08:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be borne in mind that "a double first doesn't mean anything to Americans.Heqwm 04:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No, and it probably doesn't mean much to Russians, Chinese or Canadians. Do we have to explain such things? For example, if I were writing an article on soccer and referred to an "own goal", would I need to explain that? Anyhow, writing about an Oxford academic, surely it is reasonable to expect some knowledge. In fact I queried Dan Snow's "double first", and for further enlightenment, please see the discussion there. Millbanks 23:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I’ve just chanced on this. Lewis got a double first. Betjaman didn’t get a degree. Who’s the better writer? Have you read any of Lewis’s poetry? If you haven’t don’t bother. Apparently Lewis once threatened Betjaman with a broad sword he kept in his rooms. Now that’s an interesting image. Dave59 (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Lewis's poetry is spectacular. It's precisely because it was good (and not made of the nonsensical tripe that got noticed in Lewis's day--and today, come to think of it) that it didn't go very far. Pity. Anyway, who reads Betjeman anymore? To the Betjmemobile, Robin! Holy Crappy Verse, Betjeman!

And Lewis never owned a broadsword.

Fair use rationale for Image:Joy Gresham.jpg

Image:Joy Gresham.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Conversion - the road to Damascus or to Whipsnade ?

The article mentions Lewis's conversion following a trip to the zoo.

It's a locally believed 'myth' here in Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire where I live that he had a 'Damascus" style conversion during a motorbike ride from Oxford to the Whipsnade zoo, which lies between Leighton Buzzard and Dunstable - (it's more or less on Dunstable Downs). Is there any truth in this story ? Can it be verified, and does Tolkien have any involvement in it ?

18:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Lewis himself mentions it in his biography, Surprised by Joy. He went for a ride with his brother, Warnie, and when he left, he says, he did not believe that Christ was the Son of God, and when he arrived, he did. Nothing quite like a Damascus road, smacked-on-your-face-blind, whither-persecutest-thou-me experience, really. Lewis had slowly come to be a theist by this point and he essentially tipped over the edge to Christianity. Tolkien's involvement comes most famously in a long chat he and Lewis (and Hugo Dyson, I believe) had one night at Oxford about myth and Christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.43 (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism is a bit one-sided

I'm not a C.S. Lewis expert, but I'd be surprised if there were no rebuttals by notable people to the criticisms listed. (and before anyone throws the {{Template:Sofixit}} at me, I wouldn't be the best person to fill this out)--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In general it's not a good idea for criticism sections to include rebuttals. Because if you do, someone will insist on putting rebuttals to the rebuttals, and then rebuttals to the rebuttals to the rebuttals, and then the whole section becomes a debate. Some articles have really suffered from this syndrome. Yes it seems one-sided but as it's done consistently it's not as bad as the alternatives. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

However now I think about it there is one paragraph I'm not sure about. Is Dan Barker really attacking Lewis, or is he attacking Christianity in general? If the latter, or if he is merely using Lewis as an example of the things he objects to, then he probably doesn't merit a mention here. If he singles out Lewis as being in some way worse then the other Christians he obviously disagrees with then he should stay. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

A read a summary and it seems that Barker is just disagreeing with Lewis' views. That isn't really notable - any atheist will disagree with him. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'll remove that part. As for the rest of the section, is there anyway (since its pretty short) it could be integrated into the main body or make it a "reception/response" section?--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I also removed the part saying "So and so criticized Lewis in so and so" because there's nothing about what they were criticizing in the first place, just that criticism existed.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the remaining criticism was (surprise surprise) Pullman's I added it into the legacy his opinion. Should it be noted that he himself has admitted that his series is an anti-Christian parallel to Narnia?--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's discussed in significantly more detail in the Narnia article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Professorate not "honorary"

His position as professor at Cambridge shouldn't be listed as honorary, since it was not. It was a real academic position. dllu (talk) 10:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely right, and I've removed it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Birth Name

I added Lewis birthname to the page as it was not exisiting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterDoss (talk • contribs) 07:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Apostrophes

Please don't edit war. The talk page is the right place to discuss edits, even about apostrophes.

My two cents here is that an apostrophe is placed after the s only when the non-posessive word already ends in an s (Dickens' stories, the masses' beliefs). Since children doesn't end in an s there is no problem with children's. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Belfast, Ireland? Shouldn't it be Belfast, Northern Ireland?

I've just signed up to Wikipedia and this is my first contribution to a discussion topic, so please forgive (and please point out!) any errors in etiquette on my part.

Please don't think I'm making a pseudo-political point, but shouldn't the article refer to Lewis' birth place as Belfast, Northern Ireland? The reason is that the "Ireland" hyperlink points to the modern country of the Republic of Ireland, not the modern country of Northern Ireland. I appreciate that Northern Ireland did not exist as a political entity at the time of Lewis' birth, but we don't refer to (as deliberately extreme examples) Tehran, Persia or Istanbul, Thrace.

I do however think it quite right and proper that he be listed as Irish, but isn't the reference to Belfast, Ireland misleading?

Will welcome discussion, and apologies if this has been discussed and resolved already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davymid (talk • contribs) 20:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Belfast, Ireland appeared a couple of times in the article. I've removed Ireland from those instances, and I think that resolves the problem. It's not like Belfast was some obscure city that had to be tagged with a country name just to help readers to place it. "Belfast" on its own is enough. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! This has been discussed before, I believe. I think Anticipation's fix may be valid, but I want to correct your examples a bit. Birthplaces in Wikipedia are represented by the names of the place at the time of birth. Rather than "Istanbul, Thrace", a better example is Philo of Byzantium, who was born in Byzantium, the city now known as Istanbul. It would be incorrect to say Philo was born in Istanbul. Abdolhossein Sepanta was in fact born in Tehran, Persia, and it would be incorrect to say he was born in "Tehran, Iran". In the same way, Lewis was born in Belfast, Ireland, not Belfast, Northern Ireland. Jpers36 (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The hyperlink for "Ireland" points to an article that is headed "This article is about the island. For the state of the same name, see Republic of Ireland. For other uses, see Ireland (disambiguation)." That doesn't seem too misleading (not a criticism -I haven't been through the revision history to see whether it already did that when the comment was posted, and so on). --Paularblaster (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If you think this one is tricky, you should see the debates over whether Copernicus was German or Polish! --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I concede the valid point Paularblaster. I agree that Anticipation's edit of removing Ireland/Northern Ireland [completely] has po6tential to cause more ambiguity (by not directing the searcher as to ANY geographic location of Belfast. I must say I found this solution to be unsatifying. How are we to assume that someone from e.g. SE Asia would know the location of Belfast, just because it was a prominent European city at the time?)

As I learn more about the Wikipedia process, indeed I agree that Belfast, Ireland would direct the interested researcher to the correct reference, which should be all that matters. I consider this issue resolved, and say that Belfast, Ireland should reasonably stand in the references for C.S Lewis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davymid (talk • contribs) 00:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we can assume that a European will know that Kolkata is an Indian city and a South-East Asian will know that Belfast is a European one, and those who don't, or need to know more, can click the link to find out. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, with all due respect Anticipation, your assumption is wrong, as I'm a well-educated European (PhD Geology, University of Aberdeen), and I've never heard of Kolkata in my life. That's my admission, which reinforces the point that the reader should be directed to SOME location of the City of Belfast, historical or not, and not assume that they should know where to look, on the map, without a description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davymid (talk • contribs) 01:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

What should be happening is that we say Belfast, Ireland. Since the latter link points to the island it will negate any disagreement about whether we should point at Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland. In fact I'll do that. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Nationality

Lewis is identified in most sources as a British author because he was born, lived as and died a British subject and because he worked throughout his adult life in England within a broader English literary and Anglican tradition. He was moreover born in a part of Ireland which was and remains a British province. British is therefore the most convenient and apposite umbrella term to use. His abiding sense of Irishness in England is sufficiently developed in the article and does not alter his legal status as a British subject. The claim made in the talk pages for the mutual exclusivity of Britishness and Irishness is simply fatuous, and is apparently only made because it affords a pretext for a Nationalist appropriation of the author. Those were not Lewis's politics, and a balanced article requires a full and ungrudging acknowledgement of his larger British identity. 129.67.174.46 (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Lewis's case seems quite similar to that of George Bernard Shaw, who is identified as Irish in his WP article (and elsewhere). This has been discussed extensively, and the consensus seems to be for "Irish" to stand, but I won't revert you further until others have weighed in. Deor (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Anglo-Irish, perhaps? Srnec (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say British (as all other people should be who were born in the UK...as opposed to listing them as English, Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish...which does not reflect the actual nationality of the person) as this is the prevailing nationality before and after 1922 in Belfast. As for Anglo-Irish, it implies English-Irish, which is not correct in other cases. Darkieboy236 (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Anglo-Irish presumes a whole other set of cultural references which are simply inappropriate to Lewis. While it's technically true that people born in the UK are/were legally British, it's hardly reasonable to use it to describe, say, Patrick Pearse or Dan Breen. Lewis is a different (and difficult) case as he spent most of his life, as the first contributor here said, as a British subject and within a British and Anglican tradition. On the other hand, the discussion here contains several instances where he identified himself as Irish, and that surely must count for a lot. Besides, "Irish" is defined not necessarily by political but also cultural boundaries. I vote for sticking with "Irish". --Rbreen (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that some of our trouble here is from the fact that Lewis, in common with many of his time, would probably have seen no contradiction in describing himself as both British and Irish, any more than someone today might see no contradiction in describing himself as both British and a Yorkshireman. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Shaw wore his Irishness on his sleeve and is still often described as an Anglo-Irish writer. In the case of Lewis cultural boundaries obviously overlapped, which is a much better reason to stick with British as the more inclusive term, instead of trying to excise him from his primary cultural milieu at Oxford. He was Irish but in a British context, and also British in a global context. Had Lewis gone to the USA and become a US citizen, we wouldn't be having this discussion; similarly, British is an official civic nationality, rather than an ethnic label like Irish was and English still is. 80.189.156.49 (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The ethnic Irish makeover of Lewis in this Wikipedia article through the suppression of any reference to his British nationality and the massing of selective quotations about his feeling of distinctiveness from his English neighbours means that his Irishness is much more prominent here than it is in own writings or in biographies written about him. This distortion obscures the fact of his British nationality to the perverse extent that one contributor to the talk pages even suggested that his Irish childhood meant he could never have been British at all, ignoring the law and conveniently glossing over the fact that being English and being British are not the same thing. The effect (and presumably the intention) of decontextualising Lewis's own words is to invite such a misinterpretation of them. This hijacking of a British literary icon says more about Irish Nationalist politics and the contemporary multicultural fad for ethnicity than it does about Lewis's own ambivalent feelings of belonging, evident in one remark by Lewis conspicuous by its absence from the article: 'I'm more Welsh than anything, and for more than anything else in my ancestry I'm grateful that on my father's side I'm descended from a practical Welsh farmer. To that link with the soil I owe whatever measure of physical energy and stability I have. Without it I should have turned into a hopeless neurotic.' Fairly acknowledging that Lewis was a British author is the least that could be done to ease the imbalance. 129.67.174.46 (talk) 10:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Another unexplained and unsupported reversion reinforces the impression that reverters are only adamant for 'Irish' because they're misreading 'Irish' as 'not British', and superimposing a false Nationalist dichotomy onto C. S. Lewis's language, in defiance of the evidence of his own life and work. They're making mischief. Through the same worship of subjectivity one could say he was Welsh. This fast and loose attitude makes clarification essential. The reason 'British' is preferred in most sources is because it better encapsulates the aggregate. It is also more strictly factual, in the sense that it expresses the prevailing institutional reality of Lewis's own life as he chose to lead it. 129.67.174.46 (talk) 09:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Lewis self-identified as Irish. If he is to be listed as "British" then all other authors from Ireland before partition should be listed as "British" also (Oscar Wilde for example) along with every person with a wikipedia page who was/is from Great Britain being listed as "British" instead of the standard "English", "Scottish" or "Welsh" that is currently common practice on wikipedia.

Fallacious reductionism. See above. 129.67.174.46 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing I've read in this discussion justifies my reasoning being "fallacious". Oscar Wilde was born in Ireland and worked in England. He is listed as Irish. CS Lewis was born in Ireland and work in England. If Lewis, for bias reasons, is to be singled out then all those people listed with their constituational country should be labelled "British" also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.181.190 (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wilde at least had vague nationalist associations in his (Anglo-Irish) family life, so there is some excuse for pandering to nationalist subjectivity, although the the descriptor remains misleading because of the anachronistic exclusivity of Irishness in present usage. Lewis's case is too obviously different: here it's the nativist determinism that betrays a nationalist bias. Most published sources routinely identify Lewis as a British author, and Wikipedia editors should respect that well-established convention as being the most reasonable and inclusive label, rather than pushing a more arbitrary one of their own in defiance of scholarly consensus.129.67.174.46 (talk)

OK, I'm giving up on this one. 129... thinks he should be British. Currently no-one from the Irish camp is watching this article - I'll just wait for them to see it and warm my hands on the heat of the resulting argument. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The real fact of the matter is that Britain is a different place to Ireland, where Lewis was born. Britain is the island that consists of England, Scotland and Wales. The UK describes both Britain and Ireland pre-Irish independence, and Britain and Northern Ireland post 1922. Just look at a 'UK' passport to see this - "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", not just Britain. To be totally factually correct we would have to describe him (and all other Irish people born before 1922) as UK-ish. Since that is nonsensical the only option is Irish. Just as someone born under British rule in India is Indian Lewis is Irish. To be consistent with the article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain

More confirmation that Britain does not include Ireland in the WP article on the '1800 Act of Union' that created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Union_1800

One other option, although a little ridiculous, is to put something along the lines of "an Irish writer who, as a result of the geopolitical relations at the time, was also a British subject as were all Irish people at the time". But then, to be consistent, similar declarations must be made for all people in the same boat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.224.183 (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi 83. Your first point is technically incorrect. You are "British" if you are a citizen of the United Kingdom; true today and true in Lewis' day (not that everybody likes that, of course). Someone born in present day Northern Ireland is still as "British" - by legal definition at least - as an Englishman or a Welshman. See Terminology of the British Isles for more detail.

In matter of definition therefore Lewis was both British (because he was a British citizen) and Irish (because he was born in Ireland); the same could be said for anyone born in Ireland at the time. The question is simply which one should we treat as his primary nationality. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi DJ. In that case we are both correct and incorrect. He was a British subject, as we can see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_of_the_United_Kingdom_and_Colonies#Prior_to_1949. However so was everyone born under British rule in Canada, Australia, India etc. - "every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the British Crown (and no other) was a British subject". Should we relabel everyone in this category as British?! If we take a more pragmatic view that someone who is considered 'British' was born in Great Britain, but someone who was born under British rule is considered of their home nationality, with British subject status I think we can come to a more informative compromise. I have changed the article in such a way, but go ahead and make an alteration if you think of something better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.224.183 (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It's absolutely perverse. British people don't just come from Great Britain. Ireland was (and Northern Ireland certainly still is) part of the British Isles. Britain is a colloquialism that can mean either. Only Irish Nationalists try to maintain that Irish and British are mutually exclusive (thereby denying and stigmatising the Unionist point of view). Only Irish Nationalists seek to monopolise the term Irish as a separate nationality from British. Only Irish Nationalists would object to Lewis being recognised as British. This new tortured and grudging reference to Lewis being primarily "Irish" but of "British subject status" reflects an Irish Nationalist bias which is wholly inappropriate to the subject. It's not just a matter of law but of politics. Lewis wasn't an Irish Nationalist: he was an evangelical Tory who lived in England. In the larger British context, Irish is an ethnicity rather than a separate nationality. And the article already makes abundant reference to his Irish links (and it could be said to overemphasise these to rationalise arbitrarily and provocatively relabelling his nationality as Irish). Lewis's Britishness is not just a matter of the law of "subject status": his cultural identity is complex and reflects his wider British background, so uniquely singling out the Irish component is misleading culturally as well. Lewis said himself he was more Welsh than anything. The majority of reference works identify him as a British writer. It is the most appropriate and inclusive label for someone like himself: of Welsh ancestry born in the Protestant north of Ireland but who spent his life writing and teaching in England, and whose main contribution is to mainstream English literature. Indeed, it is just this kind of person that the British label was made for. It is therefore the conventional one applied to Lewis by most published sources. So it is only right that it should be restored. 129.67.174.46 (talk) 10:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

New Yorker Magazine article on C.S. Lewis

 http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/11/21/051121crat_atlarge

Links to a New Yorker Magazine article called "Prisoner of Narnia -- How C.S. Lewis Escaped", by Adam Gopnik.

It would be useful in improving the C.S.Lewis article if someone could confirm or refute it's claims, as follows:

Gopnik refers to Lewis' "bullying brand of Christianity", paragraph 1.

Gopnik refers to "Lewis' weird and complicated sex life", paragraph 3.

Gopnik claims Lewis "born into a rough and ready but pious Ulster protestant family", paragraph 6.

Gopnik implies Lewis discovered George MacDonald prior to going to school in England, paragraph 7.

Gopnik calls Lewis "a bright and sensitive British boy turned by public-school sadism into a warped, morbid, stammering sexual pervert", paragraph 9.

Gopnik claims Lewis "also took up with a much older married woman, with whom he had a long affair that may have had a sadomasochistic tinge", paragraph 10.

Gopnik compares Oxford tutors to lap-dancers, paragraph 11.

Gopnik attributes Lewis' conversion primarily to JRR Tolkien, paragraph 13.

Gopnik describes Lewis theory of "myth" in a garbled fashion. He provides a marvelous quote touching on it:

   “The story of Christ is simply a true myth,” he says he discovered
   that night, “a myth working on us in the same way as the others,
   but with this tremendous difference  - that it really happened.”

but without specifying what that theory was, paragraphs 13 and 14.

Gopnik implies Lewis saw the Church of England as the one true faith, the only Christian denomination lacking in error, paragraph 15.

Gopnik opines that "believing shut Lewis off from writing well about belief", paragraph 16.

Gopnik calls Lewis' science-fiction trilogy simplistic, "lacking in vitality", and "Blimpish", paragraph 20.

Gopnik says Aslan is "an anti-Christian figure", and should be a humble donkey not a great lion, paragraphs 21 and 23.

Gopnik says that "Lewis ended up in a state of uncertain personal faith that seems to the unbeliever comfortingly like doubt", paragraph 27.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.61.72 (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. You've put a lot of points there. The main one to remember is that the article is just one person's opinion, so it can't be really 'confirmed'. Is the Sci-fi trilogy really "lacking in vitality"? Who can say, it's a subjective opinion. Most of his other points fall into that category. Maybe the best thing is for you to read the trilogy and see if you agree.

Some points could be checked up on. Gopnik writes that "an archbishop of Canterbury" thought Lewis' brand of Christianity was "bullying", but since he doesn't say who that's almost impossible to confirm (something which Gopnik surely must have known when he wrote it, and says a lot about his approach). Some of the basic facts are documented in the article; "took up with an older married woman" means Jane Moore, but "had an affair" is far from proven and anyway she was widowed if I recall; "sadomasochistic" is speculation. Tolkien was certainly influential in Lewis' conversion - but you could have found out all those things by reading the article. As for the rest all we can say is that they are Gopnik's opinion. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Irish?

Wasn't Lewis's father Welsh?--Uriah is Boss (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Major references problem re: Douglas/David Gresham

Some of the information here has a couple issues that need work.

• Multiple bibliographic formats. I see some APA, some Wiki, some simple footnotes, etc. This needs to be cleaned up into the wikipedia formatting. APA is fine for academic literature, but by convention wikipedia uses its own system.

• The Neven 2001 article appears not to conform to WP:RS because it lacks editorial oversight. While very well written and beautifully formatted, the site appears to be the work of a single person's research (self-published). Can we find another, better source for this information? Since Douglas Gresham is still alive, this also falls under WP:BLP. By all rights, it should be deleted immediately pending resolution, but since it's the source that we're looking at, I'll leave it for a day or two to give people a chance to respond. (There is a book called In Lenten Lands by Douglas Gresham, but the material linked does not appear to come from that source.)

Wellspring (talk) 00:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)