[aruanan]

There was someone here at FR who had one of her original papers on the subject and was going to send me a copy. Somehow we never made the connection.

What amazes me is that people will completely ignore some of the most fundamental facts of the case: that Hooper was not, as he claimed, Lewis's live-in secretary/companion, that he knew him barely two weeks during a summer term in England as a graduate student helping him to get things into order after Lewis's return from hospital, that he next returned to England only after Lewis's death. All this is demonstrable. When put against Hooper's claims to the contrary, it's evident that all that followed grew from a fundamentally rotten seed of vanity and deceit. It's a pity that so many folks have been suckered. I'm happy, though, that in the more recent editions of Lewis's works, I haven't seen introductions by Hooper.

[Taliesan]

I've found her case to be convincing.

I had a private correspondence with her some years ago in which I pointed out that Barfield has to be complicit, since he is (was) the executor...but she says so little about Barfield in the books.

She was noncommittal in response.