Waitaminute. Lewis knew about nookie?
Bloody hell.
[quote]
Waitaminute. Lewis knew about nookie?
Bloody hell.
[/quotre]
'course he did. Read The Great Divorce. The Hell-spawn Lizard of Lust becomes the Stallion of Sexuality in good Christian stewardship.
You didn’t answer one of my questions though. Who said, “Professor Lewis, I’m afraid you brought sex into your talks on Eros”?
This is getting picky, I suppose, but the lectures were not “rejected as unfit for US broadcast.” They were broadcast, but to a smaller market than originally planned. The problem was not “naughty-word-itis.” There is no obscene or even titillating language in The Four Loves. There is frank talk about sex, but that’s different. An analogous situation to what the foundation did would be if a media company with two TV networks, one a broadcast network and one a cable network, looked at the pilot of a new series that they had produced to be shown on their broadcast network and said, “This doesn’t really fit our demographics for the broadcast network. Let’s put it on our cable network.” It sounded like you were saying that there were prudes in the Episcopal Radio-TV Foundation who were horrified by the lectures and wanted to deep-six them. It was more like a business decision by the management of the foundation according to what fit the demographics of their audience.
Incidentally, you do realize that Walter Hooper is untrustworthy on various things, don’t you?
Elendil’s Heir writes:
> Waitaminute. Lewis knew about nookie?
Am I being whooshed here? Do you seriously think that Lewis was prudish? Have you read any of his books?
Perelandra (a.k.a. Voyage to Venus) and That Hideous Strength are positively drenched in sexuality, and it is rarely absent from his other fictional works, aside from the Narnia series. He found American nice-nellyism comical–and incomprehensible, to boot, coming from the land that had given the world Jane Russell.
You haven’t seen The Silver Chair.
“She made love to everyone—the grooms, the porters, the housemaids, the ladies-in-waiting, and the elderly giant lords whose hunting days were past.”
Yes. I just wanted to be able to use the word “bloody” again, to get the thread back on track. 
I realize that he has been accused of fraud by a delusional woman whose charges have been conclusively refuted.
But this is getting ridiculously far afield from the topic of this thread.
John W. Kennedy writes:
> I realize that he has been accused of fraud by a delusional woman whose
> charges have been conclusively refuted.
You’re wrong, but let’s discuss this some other time and place.