I think that being a character in a play is different than being a character on a written page. With a play, you have more obvious clues that it's only an interpretation: venue, the possibility of shaking the actor's hand... etc.

Depending on how well the author crafts their book, you could end up forgetting that it is not quite how the real person behind the name might act. However, I have read a novel where J. R. R. Tolkien was a character and the author chose to have him interact in such a way that most of his lines were recognizable as being taken from Tolkien's own writing. (It happened to be some of the better parts of the book, but that's also a risk you run with having famous professors as a character...) If you're going to use name/idea recognition for your characters, I'd say that is the way to go, otherwise what's the point?

I saw Freud's Last Confession last night. For the most part I liked it, but it showed me how much I don't know about Lewis and his works. (Or once knew and forgot). Some of the ideas where clearly from his work (They were nice and put some quotes of Lewis's in the program and I recognized some others.) I had a really hard time seeing the character on stage as Lewis - I am so used to seeing him older I have a hard time imagining him young. The character in the play was likable but whether or not he was a good representation of Lewis, I can't say. I guess I'll have to do some more research.

In other words, I am still undecided on this issue. I agree Mel, that there obvious visual clues that it was an interruption in the play. Maybe I should have tried to find a picture of a younger Lewis.

On the whole I disagree with taking real people and making up fictional stories about them. Abraham Lincoln did not kill vampires.

However in this case, I think it would be interesting to see a fictional play where Lewis and Freud spoke to each other, given that it is clearly made known that the meeting onstage is purely imaginary and never happened in real life.

review from someone else who saw Freud's Last Confession

Having let my own impression of the experience settle a bit, I came away with a favorable impression. (The actors, set, and costuming were excellently done!) It's a very well written play, leaving all the questions unanswered so you have to form your own opinions. It also put Lewis and Freud's words in their mouths, so while an actual interaction might not have gone quite as speculated, I don't think it misrepresents either of them.

On the whole I disagree with taking real people and making up fictional stories about them. Abraham Lincoln did not kill vampires.

Excellent point, especially about Abraham Lincoln. When subbing in music classes, I have often shown videos about composers and some child they friend. I don't think any of these situations actually happened and I worry about the impression that the students are left with. Before I seem to stray to far from the point, a move like that with Lewis as a character would seem quite wrong. The imagined conversation between Lewis and Freud was clearly hypothetical so it isn't as bad. I'm still not 100% sure I like the idea.

Now to the real reason I came to this thread. Does it change anything if we consider that Lewis used a fictional George MacDonald in The Great Divorce? If I remember correctly, Lewis also used himself in a fictional role in one of the Space Trilogy.

I have often shown videos about composers and some child they friend.

Like Vivaldi's Ring? (...that's an audio drama, but I'm pretty sure the Beethoven one with the title I don't remember was filmed.) I think I automatically disregarded that genre in my initial posts. Heh. I read every single Dear America and Royal Diary and American Diary I could find when I was in middle school. That's marketed as historical fiction, which I have a harder time seeing as problematic. It's structured to introduce the reader/viewer to a concept: a composer, time period, event. Like, if there was a book about these two children visiting the Kilns for tea and Professor Lewis happens to mention that he's working on a book about Narnia... I'd probably be judging it on the writing quality rather than the plot.

Stuff like The Great Divorce and Freud's Last Confession seems to fall more into the category of fiction for fiction's sake...

What about historical fiction?

If your book is set in the 1950s and one of its' child characters likes that hot new series "The Chronicles of Narnia", it's only natural that the character might write to Lewis and even want to visit him.

I guess it depends on how the person is portrayed--if the writer is able to present the character in a fashion true to the real person--speech patterns, mannerisms, theology, etc.

It bothers me when an author is writing historical fiction, and places modern-day thinking on the character. Sure, people are the same throughout the ages, but really, they were less concerned about the environment 3000 years ago! If you know what I mean.

A recent novel I read stated that the girl would be free from someone's guardianship when she reached 18. The problem was that the book was set in the 1870s and legal adulthood in those days was only granted at the age of 21. A very small matter, in and of itself; it demonstrates how easy it is to make mistakes of that kind.

If I remember correctly, Lewis also used himself in a fictional role in one of the Space Trilogy.

Yes, in Perelandra. I just read the trilogy for the first time a few weeks back, and noticed that. I found that it jarred on me. He did the same thing in the Chronicles, but for some reason it feels different. More subtle, perhaps.

There is an Inklings series by Melanie Jeske set around Oxford University and a couple of fictional students of Tolkien & Lewis and their attempts to carry on what Tolkien and Lewis started. The first two books are set just after Lewis died and Tolkien appears in a couple of scenes. The last flashes back to WWII and there's a really stunning scene between the heroine & Lewis talking about God's forgiveness.

I also recall seeing Jane Austen mysteries (written by her descendant) at the library (haven't read them) and I think I have a G.K. Chesterton mystery I haven't read.

I guess for me it depends on how they're used. Something in a historical context like this or movies about composers helping children I don't mind. I found the Lincoln horror film offensive, but then again I find that type of horror film in general offensive, so that doesn't help.

If you are going to do it, I think you should get permission when possible - like Jane Austen's descendant presumably did or Lewis with George MacDonald. And keep them true to the real person. I wasn't bothered by the Inklings series (other than a couple spots get a little 'peeachy', but not Tolkien & Lewis' scenes) but not the Lincoln movie by any means.

There is also a book called "Conversations with C. S. Lewis" which features C. S. Lewis as a character.

Here are a few other examples of Lewis as a character in fiction:

The Garden at the Edge of Beyond by Michael Phillips
Escape from Heaven by J. Neil Schulman
Between Heaven and Hell by Peter Kreeft
The Journey by Peter Kreeft

Blameless In Abaddon by James K. Morrow contains a character based on Lewis.

Escape from Hell by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle mentions Lewis several times.

Does anyone know of other examples either of Lewis as a character in fiction or references to Lewis in fiction?

...The Imaginarium Geographica children's fantasies contain characters loosely based on a number of authors, including Lewis and Tolkien.

I don't personally object to fictionalized characters based on real people. (In a world where there were vampires, would Abraham Lincoln have been the sort of person to kill them?) Admittedly it can be done in a disrespectful way - if you put words in their mouth which are directly contrary to their real-life teachings, for instance. But to me putting someone in a fantastical or unrealistic scenario isn't necessarily a moral ill if the character based on them in that scenario is consistent with their morals.

I actually have no problem at all with Lincoln killing vampires, although that's not particularly my cup of tea, as anyone who can grasp that vampires do not exist automatically understand that this is a pure fiction. Insertions of people as characters in something that seems plausible is a lot more troublesome: Becoming Mrs. Lewis is problematic, as it blurs the line between fact and fiction so much that it is very easy for a reader to assume all is fact. 

I suppose I tend to think of things as being on a continuum: where to put the actual line of "no longer acceptable" though, will change depending on how I feel about their representation of the character I care about, how I think others will interpret it, and, frankly, whether or not I think it is fun. I almost never object to, say, a Doctor Who appearance of a favorite author, but I also feel that, despite being sci-fi, the authors truly do try to represent historical figures as accurately as possible. A lot of things depend entirely on the intention, research efforts, and the acceptance of fact-checking by editors and reviewers (again, if everyone is doing their job and their research). 

I don’t think it is a bad idea to have Lewis as a character in a fictional story as long as the portrayal of him is accurate.  The biographies of Lewis such as The Most Reluctant Convert are least partially fictional, but of course the viewer of the film already knows that before watching it.  It’s the same with TV shows like Voyagers when the time travelers meet Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln. You know that they are fictional portrayals of people who actually lived in history. But if they are fairly accurate it is a good thing and very enjoyable. If that was done with C.S. Lewis it would be really interesting. I like the idea because you can see someone else’s interpretation of Lewis’ character and compare it with your own view of him. 🙂