Umm, yes Joe, I know. Perhaps I should edit my post to read "when I read an article discussing his life a few years ago. I decided not to let it bias me against the books."
Besides, it's not nearly as interesting as say, that Percy Grainger was into S&M. I mean, if he'd been into cannibalism or Noh opera (not a good comparison there, I'm thinking of W.B.Yeats) well it might be of marginal interest. All this unnecessary focus on his private beliefs makes it seem the books are about secretly indoctrinating the readers.
We should be focussing on important points - like did Mr.Tumnus have a scarf? (I am pro-scarf.) What colour was The White Witch's hair? (I always thought it was white.) Is Mr. Tumnus naked, or does fur count as clothing? Can Edmund's repentance and recurring guilt be properly communicated? The books start with a focus on Edmund and Lucy, but then Susan and Peter get more emphasis when they are fighting etc: should this happen? Is Susan a very poor excuse for a character? Should the filmakers do a Jackson and spice up her role, thus tampering with the text, or remain faithful to Lewis' vision and create one of the more boring on-screen characters in a film? Did the actress have trouble staying awake during her scenes? How is Peter's nobleness communicated without making the viewers completely hostile to him?