Those are all chocolate. I've never had a chocolate candy cigarette.

Hmm.

JZ is me, only with added eloquence.

Classic Candy Cigarettes

I'm not big on cutting people slack because they were "products of their time." I always wonder where it ends. How close to now does someone have to be before they are responsible for their own views, instead of being excused by their age?

I haven't heard a single person advance that argument.

I'm making the assertion since the references to 1950 not being that long ago and your own point about not seeing oneself in their worlds might lead another to wonder about their relevance. I'm not well-equipped to be a defender of Lewis (and on cue, JZ has arrived) but I do have an opinion on Tolkien.

I remember buying candy cigarettes in 1995 or so, maybe later.

CS Lewis? I loved the Narnia books as a child. But dddly enough, despite the fact that he's within my supposed period, I never returned to study him seriously. I have always been much more interested in the freaks and pervs (and I use the terms lovingly) of the modernist period than in the more conservative writers.

But more importantly, I feel I must weigh in on this ridiculous discussion of toxic fumes. You guys are warped. Paint thinner, markers, pipe smoke, they all stink. Tobacco only smells good before it's lit.

JZ, that's a lovely defense, and raises some points I don't think I'd thought about re Susan.

I'm off to dazzle people with my smarts and stylish ways.

How close to now does someone have to be before they are responsible for their own views, instead of being excused by their age?

One of the sports-nerd's favorite activities is trying to compare athletes from different eras. The trouble is, you can say how different Babe Ruth was from his peers, but you can't say how much more different he would have been if he's had weight training, or done steroids, or used a bat that weighed less than a toddler.

All you can do, eventually, is talk about how different he was from his peers, and how other people in other eras are that percentage (ro more, or less) different from their peers.

Digression aside, the point remains, for me, that Lewis made a Drama out of his being old-fashioned, instead of just being, you know, old-fashioned. If he had been the latter, it would have been "see him in his context," and mute the cultural differences if you can. Because he was the former, I spent more time figuring out his complexes than I did comprehending his prose.

I'm not big on cutting people slack because they were "products of their time." I always wonder where it ends. How close to now does someone have to be before they are responsible for their own views, instead of being excused by their age?

I think if we are going to apply the tools of revisionist history to someone's work, the reverse onus applies and we need to be knowledgeable enough about their life and times to determine if their work stands up to scrutiny.

ETA: I can't say I know enough about Lewis to know on his score. He certainly was an odd duck (and JZ's summary was helpful to me). JRRT lived a similarly sheltered (and times, desperate) life, and I think, in his case, that it is unfair to suggest that he should have had more modern views, considering his circumstances. The man's life work is an epic of anti-industrialism. The England he revered is one we can only imagine.