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.

There is way too much meaningless noise and advertising barrage of the spectator at modern ballparks. I wish I could write to our Mister Rogers and tell him that I already buy every product his company offers, could I please opt out of the bombardment of stuff at the game? It isn't the ads really, but the scoreboard nonsense activities (all of which have advertising connections) and other crap which distract from the "day out at the ballgame" field-of-dreams kind of experience that we are continually told is the magic of baseball.

I have to bring this back up because the Mets' home opener just had a fifteen minute delay in the middle of the game because the advertising board in dead center field (right in the batters' line of sight) wouldn't shut off when the inning started. They eventually had to cover it with a tarp (and hilarity ensued when the first tarp they tried ripped).

I see myself in George Bernard Shaw's plays (born 1856). I see myself in Trollope novels (born 1815), for pity's sake.

If adult women are barely present in Tolkien and most of Lewis, it's because of choices they made to reject the modern world. They aren't passive victims of their times; they are men who made a deliberate choice to embrace a certain image of the world.

Awww, thanks for indulging my crazy wordfulness (I am unsurprised to discover yet again that Susan W. and I are as one in a literary opinion; we need matching T-shirts that say, "What she said") -- and Burrell, congratulations on the start of maternity leave! msbelle, go forth, have fun and be shiny.

Also, I've been too blabby and opinionated. Someone else tell me what to have for lunch (soft-shell taco with black beans and fresh salsa, Italian panino sandwich, prolly involving portobello mushrooms, pizza slice, or take my chances with the cafeteria downstairs since it's the cheapest option).

(There is also a Panda Express on campus, but I try to pretend there isn't)

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

It's complicated by the fact that a lot of ideas are going to be flying around in any particular age. Who's the stanard of our age? (Note: If it's Antonin Scalia -- and you could probably raise at least a half-sound argument that it is -- you're starting from a very different base than if it's Howard Dean.)

My view -- and I won't apply it to Lewis because I haven't read his work -- is that I won't let incidental examples of the views of an age spoil my enjoyment of something. For example, I won't turn against a 1930s movie just because the only black character is a maid or the porter on a train. Now, if the character's part involves being a living embodiment of racist stereotypes, it's a very different story.

I was wondernig why the web recap of the game wasn't updating.

But I like it when you're blabby and opinionated. I learn stuff.

That is one of the reasons why Wrigley Field is so beloved, DXM--they've done an excellent job of keeping the advertising to a bare minimum.

Note: If it's Antonin Scalia -- and you could probably raise at least a half-sound argument that it is -- you're starting from a very different base than if it's Howard Dean.

Yes, this. Exactly.

[eta: And you know, I'm not even going to bother pointing out that I am, in fact, a huge Tolkien fan. Doesn't mean I have to like/enjoy/identify with/forgive everything about either the man or his works.]

Also, I've been too blabby and opinionated.

No such thing!

My view -- and I won't apply it to Lewis because I haven't read his work -- is that I won't let incidental examples of the views of an age spoil my enjoyment of something. For example, I won't turn against a 1930s movie just because the only black character is a maid or the porter on a train. Now, if the character's part involves being a living embodiment of racist stereotypes, it's a very different story.

What he said. Except I can even get past characters being living embodiments of stereotypes, sometimes, depending.