The C.S. Lewis Hoax

by Kathryn Lindskoog

A shadow looms over the Lewis legacy

C. S. Lewis is the best-selling Christian author of our century, and one of the best-selling authors of all time. Because he and his books are dearly loved, an industry has grown up around him since his death. Careers and fortunes can be built upon his popularity, either worthily or unworthily.

Lewis wrote both fiction and nonfiction. And information about him today is also fiction and nonfiction. Today, some twenty-five years after Lewis's death, part of the Lewis business is a hoax. This book is a modest attempt to lay to rest a deception that has gone on long enough.

Genres: Biography, Literary Criticism

175 pages, Hardcover

First published November 1, 1988

Reviews

[Sheryl · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first time I read one of Walter Hooper’s introductions to a C.S. Lewis book, I started it with a sense of delight, but long before I’d finished it, I’d decided he was an untrustworthy source, at least when it came to what C.S. Lewis was like. I seem to have a high tolerance for “name droppers” – Dominick Dunne’s various references never bother me – but even when Hooper was naming some friend of Lewis’ I’d never even heard of, my gut feeling was that he was lying to me, that these people were not, necessarily, his dear friends just as they’d been Jack’s. Off the subject of his friendship with Lewis and Lewis’ friends and relations, I found Hooper’s observations interesting and worthy of consideration; on the subject of those relationships, he creeped me out.

So I was sold on Lindskoog’s basic argument – that Hooper has exaggerated and abused his relationship with Lewis for reasons of his own – long before I ever heard of Lindskoog. When it comes down to the specifics, however, I’m less sold on some of her suspicions. I don’t like The Dark Tower, and would be happy to have it proved Lewis never wrote it, but unfortunately I don’t find Lindskoog’s arguments convincing. The various books in that trilogy are so different that I wouldn’t be surprised at Lewis going in such a new direction with another in the series, and I have no faith in the computer programs that compare words used to identify an author actually producing accurate results even in much more tidily-connected works.

I also don’t share Lindskoog’s conviction that every sentence Lewis ever wrote will be notable for its “grace and vitality”; I would guess that, if he wrote The Dark Tower as it has been printed, it's a rough draft that he abandoned before cleaning it up. Few authors known for great prose release their rough drafts, after all.

I suspect Lindskoog is correct in saying that Lewis would not claim or mention the stupid nickname “Lu-Lu.” Lewis may have been a modest man, but that goes beyond modesty to self-ridicule of a sort Lewis does not seem prone to (unless you take Hooper’s various intros as gospel, which I do not). But, while that might be an indication that Hooper has fiddled with the fragment, just as he has fiddled with Screwtape and (apparently) some of Lewis’ poems, it’s not hard evidence, and it’s definitely not evidence that Lewis didn’t write the gist of the thing.

Personally, the various tamperings Hooper admits to (Screwtape again), as well as other relatively minor (at least to Hooper, apparently), but unmentioned, changes to previously published Lewis works that have been released with Hooper as editor/under his authority, make me wary of anything he offers without a previously published version to compare it to. So I do think Lindskoog performs a service by pointing out some of these changes (admitted and otherwise).

But, although Lindskoog’s suspicions about Lewis’ previously unpublished works are often speculative, she’s on much firmer ground when accusing Hooper of libel. While it’s clear that Warren Lewis was an alcoholic, Hooper’s portrayal of how this alcoholism manifested itself, particularly in his intro to They Stand Together, is far off the mark, and, IMHO, demonstrably so. It doesn’t fit with the reports of others who knew Warnie better, and it doesn’t fit with Warnie’s diary.

While I find Hooper’s stories that make him sound much more important to Lewis and much closer to Lewis’ friends than he was in reality creepy and annoying, what he says about Warren Lewis makes me outright angry. And while Lindskoog is on occasion shrill, and, IMHO, convinced that Hooper has done evils beyond the evidence, I appreciate her defense of Warnie, and think the book worthwhile on those grounds alone. But, as with Hooper, filter all claims through logic, with evidence from more reliable sources.

[J. Wootton · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fairly well laid out; variously implausible.

The hoax in question is an apparent prank played on Lindskoog herself by one of Walter Hooper's friends, though Lindskoog is happy to make the title serve double-duty for her insinuations about Hooper himself. She was right about Mrs. Moore, and seems quite near the mark about Hooper's indiscretions and misrepresentations in the early years of his management of Lewis' literary estate. On the other hand, her arguments about possible manuscript forgeries amount to a refusal to believe that Lewis' drafts and abandoned work might not be quite as polished as his final, published work.

A highly mixed bag of a book, likely published because controversy is good for business. As one reporter put it, "Her book and the many evidences and rebuttals that have come in its wake make for a huge can of worms in which one could squish around for weeks." (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-x...). Brenton Dickieson wrote a good piece on the whole affair; read it here.

[Nathan · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a very interesting but seriously flawed book. Lindskood was surely an expert in the writings of Lewis and deserves praise for much of her writing. But the perceived personal sleight of not being included in the management of the Lewis literary estate poisoned her to the central target of this book, Walter Hooper. The extent to which her keen sleuthing detects some serious mismanagement and misrepresentation coming from the estate is greatly mitigated by her constant conjectures, insinuations, and aspersions. But worse than the internal weakness of the book is that her central literary claim, that "The Dark Tower" is a forgery, has been adequately proven false. It doesn't take long to track down the chinks in her armor. The chinks seem small compared to the impressive case she makes in this book, but as Lewis' friend's character Smaug could have warned her about impressive armor—one missing scale can prove fatal. One praise of this book stated that even half of the conjectures she made were true, there would "have to be major revisions in the background of our understanding of Lewis." Unfortunately, it seems more likely that half of the conjectures will be proven false, casting significant doubt on much of the rest. Hooper and the estate shouldn't get a free pass; Lindskoog demonstrates that much to my satisfaction. However, if there is a major "C. S. Lewis Hoax" to be discovered, it is probably as much these pages themselves as it is what they pretend to reveal. In the end it seems that Lindskoog staked her reputation on a false lead, and the conspiracy theorist became the unwitting conspirator.

[Jerry Hillyer · Rating 2 out of 5]

Kind of wish I hadn't read this. I guess I'd probably rather have kept my 'large' view of Lewis. I really didn't need to know all this nonsense.

Clearly the author didn't care for Walter Hooper. Clearly Walter Hooper was an opportunist who was in the right place at the right time.

Sad to learn about all the background noise of CS Lewis's life. Apparently he too was mortal. So much nonsense.

[Nathan Albright · Rating 5 out of 5]

When I was in college, among the many books I read for my amusement was a volume on English history that was written by someone who wanted to rehabilitate the reputation of Richard III and argue for some sort of royal ancestry for Perkin Warbeck and engage in all kinds of other revisionist speculation about the Plantagenet and Tudor royal families, with all kinds of conspiracy theories and the like. This book has that feel to it, in that it plays on the lack of trust that people might have about the behavior of someone who edits the text he handles and engages in petty dishonesty about the level of intimate friendship he had with C.S. Lewis [1], and it has certainly erupted a firestorm within studies of C.S. Lewis. I do not know, personally, nor do I consider myself well-equipped to judge, as to how much of what the author of this book claims is actually true. The necessary skills involved would require handwriting analysis, archival research, and the like. Nevertheless, the author in this short book, under 200 pages, takes aim at the cottage industry of C.S. Lewis' writings, and the way that many of them have been edited in mostly subtle ways, with Lewis' marginalia and juvenilia being under the care of those who are less than scrupulous in their honesty and integrity. The combination of big money and low trust creates an environment where the claims of the author must be taken seriously even if they are not to be believed automatically.

In terms of its structure and contents, this book consists of various controversies and conspiracy theories about C.S. Lewis, especially the way his writings have been handled after death, since the number of posthumous works under his name is the literary equivalent of a Tupac Shakur or Biggie Smalls, to use the example of rappers whose discography grew dramatically after death. The first chapter examines the dodgy process by which Lewis' writings have been repackaged after death. After this the second chapter makes the most controversial claim, that the supposed lost C.S. Lewis novel "The Dark Tower" was a fraud perpetuated by someone, which leads to the third chapter, which examines the bonfire story as being potentially fraudulent as being one of William Hooper's exaggerations and lies about his role in preserving C.S. Lewis' literary legacy. The fourth chapter comments on the inaccuracies and troublesome tone of a documentary on Lewis' life, followed by some of the odd and unfortunate revisions of Lewis' works after his death. The the author turns her attention to the troublesome nature of C.S. Lewis's romantic life [2], which included a woman who he treated as a wife after the ardor of their relationship cooled, other women who pretended to be his wife, and an American divorcee who he married only a brief while before her death, contrary to the rules of the Anglican church. The author turns her attention at this point to the fraudulent claims of William Hooper to have been a longtime friend and collaborator of C.S. Lewis, having only met him, apparently, for a short period before his death. The author closes the main section of the book with a discussion of claims of stolen manuscripts, followed by appendices that address the concern of Lewis' Juvenilia as well as three letters to Sheldon Vanauken that mirror much of his general thought expressed in places like Mere Christianity [3].

So, what is one to make of this book? As a critical and often suspicious reader, but one who tries to be scrupulously just, I am both impressed by the passion of the author and more than a little bit displeased at the way in which this book creates a great deal of controversy and dispute over Lewis' literary legacy. The author does not represent herself as being an insider, except in that she is a very close textual critic of Lewis' writings and was complimented in a seemingly typical way by Lewis for her insight about Lewis' work in her own graduate research. Even so, this book is the sort of matter that makes it difficult for different camps of scholars within a larger canon of literature to get along well and to politely hash out their differences over banquet dinners. This is a discussion for insiders to C.S. Lewis studies, and as someone who is not an insider, I find it as distressing as Lewis found the internecine squabbles among Christians at large. It is unlikely that Lewis would have been pleased about being turned into a cottage industry, nor would he be pleased about his personal life becoming the subject of gossip and rumor and innuendo. But dead people are not generally able to do anything to protect their own legacy, but depend on others being faithful trustees of that legacy. This book is a sign that there is definitely some failure to be found there.

[1] See, for example:

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

[2] Which appears to bear a strong relationship to my own:

"But perhaps C.S. Lewis would not be mortified now; perhaps he would smile ruefully at the joke fate played on him. Throughout his entire life and ever since, his private love-life has been one long story of tall tales, white lies, discretion, denials, temptation, mistakes, and apparent timidity. Yet he has emerged as a romantic figure in spite of himself (86)."

[3] See, for example:

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

[D. L. · Rating 2 out of 5]

An academic's look at the hoaxes that surround the "industry of experts" on author C.S. Lewis. A sad look into the lives and motivations of other authors and academics.

[Read1000books · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting Lewis minutia for hard-core fans. Did he really write "The Dark Tower", etc.

[Rob Fennell · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some parts of this were quite persuasive; others, not so much.

[Jordan Magnuson]

An ingriguing investigation into various aspects of the handling of Lewis' litterary estate after his death. Some have questioned Lindskoog's motives, and it's quite possible that some of her particular conjectures about forged manuscripts are incorrect, but the important point is that the book demonstrates rather convincingly that Walter Hooper, the man who ended up through a series of strange events as the main literary trustee of the C.S. Lewis estate, appears to have been a very peculiar variety of charlatan and fraudster.

Hooper barely new Lewis, and yet managed to craft a false history and identity for himself as a close friend and confidant of Lewis, which generally went unquestioned. He then ended up with near full-control of all posthumous C.S. Lewis publications for over half a century. The bizarre upshot of it all is that Hooper was clearly genuinely obsessed with Lewis, and seems to have done a rather good job (with some potentially significant caveats, as presented in this book) preserving Lewis' literrary legacy inspite of not being the person he claims to have been (and inspite of being intensely disliked by actual close friends of Lewis such as Lewis' own brother Warren).

Reading the book was strangely similar to watching the Netflix "Fyre Festival" documentary. Where do these kinds of invested, sincere con artists come from, and why do they do what they do?

[Nathan Miller · Rating 3 out of 5]

Lindskoog apparently not only has an ax to grind but also to wield against Walter Hooper. The book raises more questions than it answers for me, particularly about the texts Lindskoog argues might be forgeries. However, the stuff about Walter Hooper -- the man who was the literary advisor for Lewis' estate and wrote much about Lewis -- was intriguing. It would not be difficult for me to believe he intentionally misrepresented his relationship with Lewis and used that to boost his career.

[Gemutlichkeit · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was fascinating. A quick read. Not engrossing. But fascinating that a) people specialize in such amazingly narrow things, and, b) people have the guts to fake their way into entirely new personas.

[Jorge · Rating 3 out of 5]

Excelente investigación. Buen escrito. Le falta datos y se nota la animosidad

[Chris Huff · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this book based on the title alone. I was intrigued by the idea and that there was some controversy in C.S. Lewis's life that may impact future books of his that I read. I suppose that I should not have been disappointed with a book of which I had no expectations, but I was.

I suppose if I was more familiar with C.S. Lewis's life, having read one or two biographies on him first, and if I had at least some knowledge of Walter Hooper, this book would have been more interesting to me. But since none of those were the case, the most intriguing chapter to me was the one having to do with C.S. Lewis's romantic encounters, which had very little to do with the main hoax discussed in the rest of the book. If more of the book had dealt with Lewis's actual life, and any controversial matters in his life, rather than about whether or not he had any kind of relationship with one controversial man, I would have like it much more.

But I suppose I just picked up the wrong book, when I should have picked up Surprised by Joy. I think I'll read that one soon.

[Rick Davis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kathryn Lindskoog argues in this book that Walter Hooper mostly made up a story about Lewis’s brother burning Lewis’s manuscripts after he died. According to Hooper’s story, he rescued a pile of manuscripts from the flames and continues to edit and publish them to this day. Lewis’s groundskeeper at the time remembers nothing of such an event. Lindskoog’s main contention is that the story "The Dark Tower" posthumously published is not really a work by Lewis but a forgery. Although I wasn't convinced that the story is a forgery, I was convinced that Hooper is a weirdo who really wishes he were Lewis’s best buddy. Does it strike you as at all creepy that Hooper possesses and cherishes C.S. Lewis’s baby blanket?

[Norman · Rating 5 out of 5]

I bought this book back in the late 80s when first published. As a bookseller I was awrae of Lindskoog's theory about many of the post-Lewis stories told about him and his hangers-on and the actual published work in his name, not necessarily having the "Ring of Truth" or as Lindskoog, quoting Churchill says full of "Terminological inexactitudes". I did wonder when first reading "The Dark Tower" and "Boxen" and "They stand together" how, even if early work (in the the case of the former two), these could be the crisp penmanship of Lewis. The problem with the premise is that now i must do more research to see who and how these arguments have been refuted. Or maybe, more worthwhile, just re-read some Lewis! A really interesting and easily read book that challenges.

[John Majors · Rating 2 out of 5]

Mixed feelings about this book. It was good to see another perspective on the Lewis legacy that Walter Hooper stewarded. I think she does point out some important inconsistencies in his story that are worth exploring further. however I also see some inconsistencies in her references that made me feel she may be overstating her case. At the end of the day it doesn't really affect my view of Lewis or the works of his that I've read. The one book that she really attacks, The Dark Tower, I've not read nor have any interest in reading.

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great.