# George MacDonald *The Urth list — 2 messages, 2 voices, 22 Jan 2003* > Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright > in each message remains with the person who wrote it. > Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original > archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than > retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact. --- ### Nigel Price *22 Jan 2003, 12:35* >> Tami Whitehead wrote: >> ((Honestly, I read Doors, and just sat and scratched >> my head for a day or so. It reminded me a bit of >> Lilith, by ol' what's his name, friend and >> contemporary of C S Lewis etc...rats, what's his name, >> but you know the one, Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe >> for adults, with a tad un-orthodox Christian >> symbolism...)) I suppose, strictly speaking, George Macdonald (1824-1905) and C S Lewis (1898-1963) overlapped by about seven years, but you wouldn't normally call them "contemporaries". Years ago, I did a dissertation on Macdonald and read all his fantasy novels and stories and a chunk of his literary criticism and mainstream Victorian fiction too. To quote one of my children's favourite phrases, "it did my head in." Some of his stories were good - I liked "The Golden Key" for example - but most of his work is verbose, poorly structured and mawkishly sentimental. Some of it is also, frankly, perverse. I never did really understand what Lewis saw in him. So imagine my horror when I read the following in Nutria's interview with Wolfe ("That's his name Jim, but not spelt as we know it!"): >> JJ: Now you are reading George McDonald? >> GW: Yes, Lilith. I had not read anything >> except Curdie and the Goblin and At the >> Back of the North Wind and those types, >> and they are quite good but they are >> basically fairy stories. I had read others >> that were about that good, but I don't think >> they had any great theological impact, any >> great feeling from that standpoint. I agree entirely with Wolfe's verdict on the main body of Macdonald's work, but, frustratingly, he doesn't say what he thought of "Lilith". Now that you mention it, though, I can see some points of overlap for Wolfe. Other worlds, ambiguous goddess/queens...and Lilith, if I recall, has some inhuma-like characteristics...She turns into a blood sucking white slug or worm at night. As in the famous C L Moore story "Shambleau", however, MacDonald is deliberately vague...Oh dear, how do I put this?...about what it is exactly that Lilith sucks... I do apologise for that. Love Wolfe, don't like most MacDonald. Nigel --- ### Andy Robertson *22 Jan 2003, 13:19 · follows Nigel Price* He he he . . . I love MacDonald, But I agree, he's DEFINITELY kinky. But it's the Goddess, you see. Mother R*d**bt. :) She demands the status of divinity. And if you won't worship her, she turns into a soul/semen-sucking Lilith - or an evil Mother in the sea. Actually Macdonald's most joyful and peaceful Fairy-Stories are the CURDIE books, which contain a wonderful image of the Lady. He was from time to time able to recognise her divinity without guilt or fear. Wolfe has never quite managed it. Andy R ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Price" T > Years ago, I did a dissertation on Macdonald and read all his fantasy > novels > and stories and a chunk of his literary criticism and mainstream Victorian > fiction too. To quote one of my children's favourite phrases, "it did my > head in." Some of his stories were good - I liked "The Golden Key" for > example - but most of his work is verbose, poorly structured and mawkishly > sentimental. Some of it is also, frankly, perverse. I never did really > understand what Lewis saw in him. > > So imagine my horror when I read the following in Nutria's interview with > Wolfe ("That's his name Jim, but not spelt as we know it!"): >>> JJ: Now you are reading George McDonald? >>> GW: Yes, Lilith. I had not read anything >>> except Curdie and the Goblin and At the >>> Back of the North Wind and those types, >>> and they are quite good but they are >>> basically fairy stories. I had read others >>> that were about that good, but I don't think >>> they had any great theological impact, any >>> great feeling from that standpoint. > I agree entirely with Wolfe's verdict on the main body of Macdonald's > work, > but, frustratingly, he doesn't say what he thought of "Lilith". Now that > you > mention it, though, I can see some points of overlap for Wolfe. Other > worlds, ambiguous goddess/queens...and Lilith, if I recall, has some > inhuma-like characteristics...She turns into a blood sucking white slug or > worm at night. As in the famous C L Moore story "Shambleau", however, > MacDonald is deliberately vague...Oh dear, how do I put this?...about what > it is exactly that Lilith sucks... ---