Talk:The Dark Tower (Lewis novel)

Novels Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

It seems unfortunate that this entry mostly serves to introduce the reader to the "controversy" without really offering much defense from the Hooper camp. Has such a defense been published anywhere? What does Douglas Gresham have to say about it?

I don't know about any scholarly defense, but the style of the book breaths Lewis. Of course its quite possible that someone well enough aquainted with Lewis could replicate his style, but what would Hooper's incentive be? As far as that goes, if one were going to falsify a novel, why not falsify a whole one? There would be a monentary incentive to that, but as it stands The Dark Tower is only realy interesting to scholars studying Lewis and his truly die-hard fans. Snowboardpunk

The fact that it was never completed or published leads one to believe Lewis probably didn't like it...which might be because it wasn't his best work. That might explain the inconsistencies. Jon Moore 04:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth (not much) I believe the work to be authentic and have just written a brief bio of Hooper to match the Lindskoog piece. Bigturtle 03:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A. N. Wilson is sharply dismissive of Lindskoog and her theories in his biography of Lewis, despite showing no great fondness for Hooper. He says nothing about the story, however. (I have a copy of the book if anyone thinks we should quote him.) Cheers , CWC(talk) 17:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1]

A New article By Harry Lee Poe in Christianity Today sides with Lindskoog, and quotes from Alistar Fowler, a Renaissance scholar'...[Who edited] Lewis's lecture notes on Spenser and publish them as Spenser's Images of Life with Cambridge University Press This article gives some real evidence that Lewis was working on �69� and provides some evidence as to why it was aborted at a early stage.

Poe's Final Analysis is this, In sum, everyone—including Kathryn Lindskoog—is right to be passionate about the integrity of Lewis's body of writing. But we know now that worries about The Dark Tower were unfounded and that the bitter divisions they caused were unwarranted.

Is this the kind of thing that should be added to the story??

[2] A new article in CT, this one a review of the final volume of CS Lewis's Letters, seems to point out Hooper's response to Lindskoog (read the final paragraphs). If someone could get ahold of the book and check those references, it seems Hooper may have settled the matter of the manuscript. (Quote follows)

"...on page 1669 he points out (again, with devastating matter-of-factness) that Alastair Fowler, writing in The Yale Review, disclosed that he had seen the manuscript of The Dark Tower in Lewis' company before Hooper had met either Lewis or Fowler."

The actual tower ?[edit]

I had the impression that the tower was based on the Cambridge University Library. -- Beardo 08:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think this is actually mentioned in the story (though it's a long time since I read it...). If I can confirm this I'll add a note. AndrewWTaylor 10:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's important to the story: The Othertimers modelled their building on one in Lewis' universe in order to strengthen the connection between the two worlds. The building they chose was the new University Library. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.241.199.124 (talk) 13:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corroborative evidence for Lewis's authorship[edit]

Users of this site might want further information regarding 'a man named Alistair Fowler.' Prof. Fowler is a Regius Professor Emeritus in the University of Edinburgh. His article, 'C.S. Lewis: Supervisor' was published in the Yale Review (LXXXXI/4 (October 2003), pp. 64-80 and concerns his relationship with Lewis when Prof. Lewis was his doctoral supervisor as he, Fowler, prepared his Oxford D. Phil. thesis. Prof. Fowler is a leading scholar in his field and his word on this bizarre charge by Mrs Lindskoog should be decisive among anyone seriously wishing to understand the valuable work undertaken by Walter Hooper. From Dr J.E.B. Munson, M.A., D. Phil. (Oxon.) (Transcribed by Bigturtle 23:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Tolkien?[edit]

Wikipedia's "Out of the Silent Planet" article says Lewis and Tolkien once had a plan that Lewis would write a space-travel story and Tolkien a time-travel story; the latter dropped the idea when he became engrossed in writing LORD OF THE RINGS. Could this be Tolkien's abandonned time-travel story, turned over to Lewis and later abandonned by him as well? Yes, I know this is speculation and "original research" CharlesTheBold (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have always assumed that Tolkien's time-travel story was The Lost Road. Myopic Bookworm (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]