Lupiverse(es)

Gerry Quinn: You are ignore the actual context of the references. Urth, Verthandi and Skuld

are all planets of the same solar system in the same cycle, and the reasons they are given

the names Past, Present and Future are explained.

Jeff Wilson: Urth is certainly the repository of things and personages past, and the name is appropriate, but that doesn't make it literally in our past.

Lee Berman wrote: They are both valid, based on the support they receive. The "Urth is earth's future" camp has the unpleasant requirement of assuming that Wolfe was lying, retrofitting, forgetful or otherwise less than accurate in the interviews. Or perhaps two different interviewers managed to quote him incorrectly in the same way ...

You are ignore the actual context of the references. Urth, Verthandi and Skuld are all planets of the same solar system in the same cycle, and the reasons they are given the names Past, Present and Future are explained.

I am quite aware of the superficial context of the references. You ignore that the text can be understood at more than one literary level. I don't think there is a particularly good explanation for the names of all three planets.

But I think you missed a clue there which hints at a connection to earth. An ancient language is mentioned in which the words for gift and now are homophones. This language is surely english. The chances of it being another language are slim and pointless.

Gerry Quinn wrote: From: Lee Berman <mailto:severiansola at hotmail.com> But I think you missed a clue there which hints at a connection to earth. An ancient language is mentioned in which the words for gift and now are homophones. This language is surely english. The chances of it being another language are slim and pointless. What makes you think I missed something so completely obvious?

Gerry Quinn wrote: From: Lee Berman <mailto:severiansola at hotmail.com> But I think you missed a clue there which hints at a connection to earth. An ancient language is mentioned in which the words for gift and now are homophones. This language is surely english. The chances of it being another language are slim and pointless.

What makes you think I missed something so completely obvious?

I don't know what the two of you are discussing, but the portuguese words for gift and now are the same. I'd be surprised if it was only english and portuguese. Praesens means 'being in front of'.

From: Ant?nio Marques <mailto:entonio at gmail.com> Gerry Quinn wrote: > From: Lee Berman <mailto:severiansola at hotmail.com> > >> But I think you missed a clue there which hints at a connection to > >> earth. An ancient language is mentioned in which the words for gift > >> and now are homophones. This language is surely english. The > >> chances of it being another language are slim and pointless. > > > What makes you think I missed something so completely obvious? > I don't know what the two of you are discussing, but the portuguese > words for gift and now are the same. I'd be surprised if it was only > english and portuguese. Praesens means 'being in front of'. Now you mention it, I think I recall you reminding us of it before!

On 3/12/2012 8:06 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote: In romance, - 'present' (praesens 'being in front of') is a present participle - 'past' (passatus 'passed') is a past participle - 'future' (futurus 'going to be') is a future participle

Antonio Pedro Marques: I don't know what the two of you are discussing,

but the portuguese words for gift and now are the same.

Andrew Mason: I think he [Dionysus]must be significant somehow. It's partly

through him, I think, that the Rajan becomes aware of the way in which gods

can be forms of the Outsider;...so he must have been added to the story for some reason. I totally agree that the passage isn't telling us who the Outsider really is - that's been established by lots of references - if anything, it's telling us who Dionysus really is. But Wolfe seems to attach importance to it for some reason. Perhaps because his connection with wine makes him a prefiguring of Christ?

Jeff Wilson: Earth has had several 8 figure atrocities in the last 150 years, and the extinction of the human race is still do-able.

Humanity is scattered beyond the ability of Urthlings to wipe them out, and there may not even be 8 figures of Urthlings left.

On 3/14/2012 7:37 AM, Lee Berman wrote: Anyway, all a moot point. The morality displayed by Wolfe's Increate (put into action by his demiurgical servant Tzadkiel) suggests that genocide is not necessarily a bad thing, if done for the right reasons. Same for the OT God, of course.

Yes, but Earth's population is in the 10 figures. Anthropological estimates suggest pre-civilized humanity died at a rate of up to 25% from warfare/violence. Accuse me of optimism if you like but I think getting it below 1% is a great accomplishment. This is arguably the mose peaceful time in human history.

Was it idol worship? Human sacrifice? Witchcraft? Mating with demons and producing monstrous offspring? Pedophilia, incest and other sexual deviance? All these are hinted at in the OT and BotNS but no clear reason is given for the need to wipe out 99% of humanity on a planet.

Jeff Wilson: I'm not talking about grimly necessary custodial genocide on the part of impartial higher beings with the ability to see the true alternatives to their actions, or the natural struggle for limited resources that is common to most living things, I mean atrocities, the gratuitous slaughter, mortification, rape, and other heinous cruelties human beings visit on each other for their own peace of mind, or entertainment, or sense of entitlement, or any of the other beknighted steps of Maslow's pyramid.

Duck season!

From: Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com> To: urth at urth.net Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 9:41 AM Subject: (urth) Lupiverse(es) Jeff Wilson: I'm not talking about grimly necessary custodial genocide on the part of impartial higher beings with the ability to see the true alternatives to their actions, or the natural struggle for limited resources that is common to most living things, I mean atrocities, the gratuitous slaughter, mortification, rape, and other heinous cruelties human beings visit on each other for their own peace of mind, or entertainment, or sense of entitlement, or any of the other beknighted steps of Maslow's pyramid.

Duck season!

And now I'm repeating myself, so I'll stop.

Face it: civilization means holocaust for the Other and slavery for its survivors. "Progress" is an invention.

And now I'm repeating myself, so I'll stop.

On 3/14/2012 10:10 AM, Craig Brewer wrote: I'm not saying you can't still draw "spiritual" conclusions about all of this. But they're going to be more indirect, I think, than "this is Wolfe's final theological statement on X." For example: Urth continues, and it's a better place, but it's not a perfect "Christian" world, right?

Face it: civilization means holocaust for the Other and slavery for its survivors. "Progress" is an invention.

"Scattered across 10,000 worlds.." right? Still I wonder. We don't seem to encounter any of these humans from worlds other than Urth (maybe Typhon?). Or if we do, they are evolved to the point that we may have difficulty calling them human, like Typhon, apports, B and F, Father Inire and the Cumaean, Neighbors and Inhumi.

It would seem there are far worse actions than mass slaughter of humanity. The funny thing is that in both the OT and in BotNS, it is difficult to pin down exactly what was so wicked about ante-diluvian earth and Urth. Was it idol worship? Human sacrifice? Witchcraft? Mating with demons and producing monstrous offspring? Pedophilia, incest and other sexual deviance? All these are hinted at in the OT and BotNS but no clear reason is given for the need to wipe out 99% of humanity on a planet.

On 3/14/2012 12:04 PM, Craig Brewer wrote: And, James, do you remember where he makes that Card comparison?

1) The sun was dying out (whether "naturally" or because of the Hieros), so humanity was up a creek, anyway. From a broad perspective, the flood's "genocide" also kept humanity on Urth/Ushas going, creating (if not exactly saving) more lives.

2) Renewing the sun isn't a spiritual salvation like Christ's sacrifice.

3) ...Obviously, life just keeps going on Ushas, although in a different (and hopefully better) form. ...I'm not saying you can't still draw "spiritual" conclusions about all of this. But they're going to be more indirect, I think, than "this is Wolfe's final theological >statement on X." For example: Urth continues, and it's a better place, but it's not a perfect >"Christian" world, right? There's still something like idol worship >of Severian, etc. But at least it's closer, right? ..

James Wynn: He's [Wolfe] not primarily "justifying God's ways to man". Nor is he primarily demonstrating the moral & practical primacy of classical liberalism.

Briah is far more gnostic than Christian. Gnosticism absorbed elements of Christianity just as it did everything else so you're going to see Christian elements in any gnostic world. It is not for nothing that Severian is named after a gnostic Christian sect.

I don't detect that he feels bound to any theological historicity. If I believed that, then I would conclude that Wolfe has strong secret gnostic leanings. And I don't.

But one should not carry it to the next level and speculate on the theological implications of the expanding/collapsing universes.

Gerry Quinn: Typhon is clearly human

Perhaps you should consider re-reading the book.

Gerry Quinn: Typhon is clearly human

Perhaps to you. Not to me and not to many others.

Perhaps you should consider re-reading the book.

Mind your manners, Gerry. You've shown great improvement of late but that was a relapse. Plus I've read the books more times than you have and I understand them better. But I won't make the same discourteous suggestion you did. ;- ) same

On 3/14/2012 2:03 PM, Lee Berman wrote: Craig Brewer:

1) The sun was dying out (whether "naturally" or because of the Hieros), so humanity was up a creek, anyway. From a broad perspective, the flood's "genocide" also kept humanity on Urth/Ushas going, creating (if not exactly saving) more lives.

I disagree. In the Master Ash episode, he makes it clear to Severian that almost the entire population was rescued from the freezing Urth. Making it clear to the reader that renewing the planet was not for the purpose of saving or preserving humanity per se. Wolfe would not have put this section in unless he was trying to say it was more than a racial survival issue. Either millions of people died in the Flood on Urth over a simple nostalgia for renewing the physical planet of origin or there is something more deeply spiritual going on. (though nostalgia is a form of spirituality I'd say).

2) Renewing the sun isn't a spiritual salvation like Christ's sacrifice.

Agreed. But renewing the sun is like Noah's Flood which I think Wolfe is trying to say WAS a form of spiritual salvation of humanity. I'm not sure how most Christian theologians feel about Noah's Flood but this view makes sense if you don't want to believe in a God who is capriciously genocidal and/or uncaring about His creations. To justify the Flood, one must believe in a huge spiritual benefit to balance the painful deaths of so many millions of people and animals. Urth continues, and it's a better place, but it's not a perfect "Christian" world, right? There's still something like idol worship of Severian, etc. But at least it's closer, right? So it's like steps toward salvation where the central "true" story gradually becomes more and better understood/told/remembered/lived.

3) ...Obviously, life just keeps going on Ushas, although in a different (and hopefully better) form. ...I'm not saying you can't still draw "spiritual" conclusions about all of this. But they're going to be more indirect, I think, than "this is Wolfe's final theological>statement on X." For example: Urth continues, and it's a better place, but it's not a perfect>"Christian" world, right? There's still something like idol worship>of Severian, etc. But at least it's closer, right? ..

Yes. 100% agreed. _______________________________________________

On 3/14/2012 2:55 PM, Lee Berman wrote: My suspicions rise mostly from his interview quotes. And most specifically his statements of belief in the reality of pagan gods. Any evidence of Wolfe's personal gnostic leanings from his fiction pale in comparison to those blunt statements.

Gerry Quinn wrote: ...what you seem to “understand” is some weird confection that has little relation to the text — for example your claim (to which I was responding) that the flooding — which is clearly caused by gravitational radiation from the White Fountain - was actually instead a punishment from God for Urth’s wickedness.

Gerry Quinn wrote: ...what you seem to “understand” is some weird confection that has little relation to the text — for example your claim (to which I was responding) that the flooding — which is clearly caused by gravitational radiation from the White Fountain - was actually instead a punishment from God for Urth’s wickedness.

What makes you think that the one excludes the other?

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Craig Brewer <cnbrewer at yahoo.com> wrote: I think like James, apparently. I'm just generally skeptical of approaches that start by assuming what Wolfe must think and then try to find that in the text. I'd rather start with the story and stay with it. I know I just said not long ago that you have to take his Catholicism into account, but I think of it more as an intellectual and allusion-based context, rather than a program. Doesn't mean the stories can't end up saying those things, but it's a matter of how you get there, I suppose. And, James, do you remember where he makes that Card comparison? I recall it, but can't place it. ------------------------------ From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 11:42 AM Subject: Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es)m On 3/14/2012 10:10 AM, Craig Brewer wrote: I'm not saying you can't still draw "spiritual" conclusions about all of this. But they're going to be more indirect, I think, than "this is Wolfe's final theological statement on X." For example: Urth continues, and it's a better place, but it's not a perfect "Christian" world, right? I think it is a big mistake to read Wolfe as one would read Chesterton or Lewis. He's not primarily "justifying God's ways to man". Nor is he primarily demonstrating the moral & practical primacy of classical liberalism. There is some of that in there, but --although I vocally detect a lot of things going on in his novels-- I don't detect that he feels bound to any theological historicity. If I believed that, then I would conclude that Wolfe has strong secret gnostic leanings. And I don't. Briah is far more gnostic than Christian. Gnosticism absorbed elements of Christianity just as it did everything else so you're going to see Christian elements in any gnostic world. It is not for nothing that Severian is named after a gnostic Christian sect. Wolfe has said that he doesn't feel an especial need to express his faith in his writings (citing Orson Scott Card as a counter-example). Trying to detect his theological beliefs from the setting or final resolution of Urth strikes me as folly. The New Sun can be most naturally read as being in our future. The universe iterations allow you to elide that if you want to. But one should not carry it to the next level and speculate on the theological implications of the expanding/collapsing universes. J _______________________________________________

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 9:20 PM, James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> wrote: On 3/14/2012 2:55 PM, Lee Berman wrote:

My suspicions rise mostly from his interview quotes. And most specifically his statements of belief in the reality of pagan gods. Any evidence of Wolfe's personal gnostic leanings from his fiction pale in comparison to those blunt statements.

CS Lewis also poses the possibility of the reality of pagan gods in some for or another. The Apostle Paul, while accepting that offerings to idols are without value, yet asserts that the "gods" to which those offerings are given were actually demons. There's something of this in The Long Sun: The Whorl gods are "daemons". They are also twisted demonic versions of the Olympic gods. There is nothing heretical in Wolfe's proposition that the pagan gods were "real". J. ______________________________**_________________

On 3/14/2012 4:11 PM, James Wynn wrote: Look, the justification for Ushas is simple: Humanity's descendants cruelly (tortuously) transformed animals into the Heiros. And now the Heiros are returning the favor to ensure humanity --in every universe possible-- will progress to a form in which they will torture the Hieros into existence.

On 3/14/2012 4:11 PM, James Wynn wrote:

Look, the justification for Ushas is simple: Humanity's descendants cruelly (tortuously) transformed animals into the Heiros. And now the Heiros are returning the favor to ensure humanity --in every universe possible-- will progress to a form in which they will torture the Hieros into existence.

On 3/14/2012 6:16 PM, Jeff Wilson wrote: Argh again!

On 3/14/2012 4:11 PM, James Wynn wrote:

Look, the justification for Ushas is simple: Humanity's descendants cruelly (tortuously) transformed animals into the Heiros. And now the Heiros are returning the favor to ensure humanity --in every universe possible-- will progress to a form in which they will torture the Hieros into existence.

On 3/14/2012 6:16 PM, Jeff Wilson wrote: Argh again!

My bad, too. I often use "Hieros" as shorthand for all Yesodis/Hiero-etceteras. And I think I did it earlier today. From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 6:31 PM Subject: Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es)

On 3/14/2012 4:11 PM, James Wynn wrote:

Look, the justification for Ushas is simple: Humanity's descendants cruelly (tortuously) transformed animals into the Heiros. And now the Heiros are returning the favor to ensure humanity --in every universe possible-- will progress to a form in which they will torture the Hieros into existence.

On 3/14/2012 6:16 PM, Jeff Wilson wrote: Argh again!

Yes, Heiros is a bad term in this instance, since we're differentiating the human creators from their creation. But if the Yesodis only want to ascend with the Heiros humans, why do they repeat the process again and again? _______________________________________________

Well, I'm way behind in all the gritty details of this debate, but (that's where you all stop reading - ach, well)... Just because Wolfe is no Card (is that a pun?) doesn't mean he can't be a clearly spiritual (and, dare I say it, 'evangelistic') writer in his own way. I, at least, have found a richly rendered 'incarnational' and 'improvisational' sort of 'apologia' and 'euangelion' (yes, radically distinct in many important ways from the likes of Chesterton or Lewis) IN THE TEXTS of the Solar Cycle, an invitational and 'subversive' Christian orthodoxy and orthopraxy (be they ever so slyly idiosyncratic) that basically 'triumphs' over all the other systems (e.g. from polytheism to gnosticism) in a theo-comedic 'underdog' sort of way (for those who wish to see it - Wolfe is no bully). [Akin to St Paul's 'cosmic judo' sort of atonement theology in Colossians 2:15.] I believe that this being the case in no way shuts down or closes the 'infinite play of meaning' that his narratives clearly intend to induce. But it does give that play certain contours and trajectories if we want to acknowledge them. I hope to write about it in more detail some day... -DOJP

On 3/14/2012 6:31 PM, James Wynn wrote:

On 3/14/2012 4:11 PM, James Wynn wrote:

Look, the justification for Ushas is simple: Humanity's descendants cruelly (tortuously) transformed animals into the Heiros. And now the Heiros are returning the favor to ensure humanity --in every universe possible-- will progress to a form in which they will torture the Hieros into existence.

On 3/14/2012 6:16 PM, Jeff Wilson wrote: Argh again!

Yes, Heiros is a bad term in this instance, since we're differentiating the human creators from their creation. But if the Yesodis only want to ascend with the Heiros humans, why do they repeat the process again and again?

Gerry Quinn: Only the other day you posted yet another of your inane rants about me, which I ignored.

what you seem to “understand” is some weird confection that has little relation to the text

Re-reading was intended as a helpful suggestion. I should perhaps amplify it by proposing that you concentrate on the meaning of the text as written and which you frequently ignore in favour of cryptic clues allegedly hidden in the syllables and such like.

Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 11:59 AM To: urth at urth.net Subject: (urth) Lupiverse(es) Gerry Quinn: Only the other day you posted yet another of your inane rants about me, which I ignored.

what you seem to “understand” is some weird confection that has little relation to the text

Re-reading was intended as a helpful suggestion. I should perhaps amplify it by proposing that you concentrate on the meaning of the text as written and which you frequently ignore in favour of cryptic clues allegedly hidden in the syllables and such like.

James Wynn: The Apostle Paul, while accepting that offerings to idols are without value, yet asserts that the "gods" to which those offerings are given were actually demons. There's something of this in The Long Sun: The Whorl gods are "daemons". They are also twisted demonic versions of the Olympic gods. There is nothing heretical in Wolfe's proposition that the pagan gods were "real".

Gerry Quinn:

Only the other day you posted yet another of your inane rants about me, which I ignored.

I don't think that's true. Perhaps you could post my inane rant to remind me?

what you seem to “understand” is some weird confection that has little relation to the text

Perhaps that's so but then it applies to all those others with whom I happen to agree with. You do seem to be at war with a number of people here.

Re-reading was intended as a helpful suggestion. I should perhaps amplify it by proposing that you concentrate on the meaning of the text as written and which you frequently ignore in favour of cryptic clues allegedly hidden in the syllables and such like.

I am pretty sure there is no amount of re-readings which would cause me to simplify my understanding down to one level and/or force my interpretations to be into congruence with your own, which is what you seem to be aiming for.

On 3/15/2012 1:07 AM, Jeff Wilson wrote: On 3/14/2012 6:31 PM, James Wynn wrote:

On 3/14/2012 4:11 PM, James Wynn wrote:

Look, the justification for Ushas is simple: Humanity's descendants cruelly (tortuously) transformed animals into the Heiros. And now the Heiros are returning the favor to ensure humanity --in every universe possible-- will progress to a form in which they will torture the Hieros into existence.

On 3/14/2012 6:16 PM, Jeff Wilson wrote: Argh again!

Yes, Heiros is a bad term in this instance, since we're differentiating the human creators from their creation. But if the Yesodis only want to ascend with the Heiros humans, why do they repeat the process again and again?

Apparently the Ascension isn't repeated each time. I also get the sense that the Yesodis, or at least some faction of them, want to avoid the torturous part as much as possible, thus their use of eidolons to supplement purpose-made hierodules and other underpeople. This might explain why the semi-exiled Inire, himself a likely replicant, makes mastiff-men and anpiels for the Autarch's purposes, but the Cumaean and F, B, & O work through physically human agents. I wonder which part of Tzadkiel is on which side.

Jeff Wilson: I wonder which part of Tzadkiel is on which side.

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote:

Jeff Wilson: I wonder which part of Tzadkiel is on which side.

Sheesh. For me this is such an incisive question. I think showing Tzadkiel evolving through so many phases including different levels of beast, levels of man and levels of angel is meant as a metaphor with a purpose. I won't say he carries "all" perspectives within himself. That is reserved for The Increate. But having lived in so many different forms, he carries quite a few perspectives, allowing an ability to be essentially on all the conflicting sides shown in the story. My view is that the old Autarch's rule is a pale reflection of the true rule of Father Inire. His secret words and his penchant for serving in various guises is borrowed from Inire, who is much more adept in these skills. Likewise I see Inire as a pale reflection of Tzadkiel, whose mechanisms and ability to play multiple roles is so much greater than his. Following the progression, Tzadkiel would be a pale reflection of The Increate who is the ultimate- ?universally found everywhere and embodied in everyone and every thing. _______________________________________________

On 3/15/2012 11:24 AM, Craig Brewer wrote: David: >>On second glance the story seems based in some form of Platonism in which all material things strive to reunite with the Ideal. I said it before, but I like to repeat myself lately. David's idea about Platonism here is almost identical to Milton's "monistic" theology. One day, I need to write up the similarities I see. Besides, it'd be fun to suggest that a Catholic writer and a violently anti-Catholic writer both had similar theologies...at least in their more imaginative writings. _______________________________________________

On 3/15/2012 12:37 PM, Lee Berman wrote:

Jeff Wilson: I wonder which part of Tzadkiel is on which side.

Sheesh. For me this is such an incisive question. I think showing Tzadkiel evolving through so many phases including different levels of beast, levels of man and levels of angel is meant as a metaphor with a purpose. I won't say he carries "all" perspectives within himself. That is reserved for The Increate. But having lived in so many different forms, he carries quite a few perspectives, allowing an ability to be essentially on all the conflicting sides shown in the story. My view is that the old Autarch's rule is a pale reflection of the true rule of Father Inire. His secret words and his penchant for serving in various guises is borrowed from Inire, who is much more adept in these skills. Likewise I see Inire as a pale reflection of Tzadkiel, whose mechanisms and ability to play multiple roles is so much greater than his. Following the progression, Tzadkiel would be a pale reflection of The Increate who is the ultimate- universally found everywhere and embodied in everyone and every thing. _______________________________________________

On 3/15/2012 7:56 AM, Lee Berman wrote: But, heresy aside, can such views be considered as leaning toward gnostic?

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Craig Brewer <cnbrewer at yahoo.com> wrote: David: >>On second glance the story seems based in some form of Platonism in which all material things strive to reunite with the Ideal. I said it before, but I like to repeat myself lately. David's idea about Platonism here is almost identical to Milton's "monistic" theology. One day, I need to write up the similarities I see. Besides, it'd be fun to suggest that a Catholic writer and a violently anti-Catholic writer both had similar theologies...at least in their more imaginative writings. _______________________________________________

On 3/15/2012 9:39 AM, David Stockhoff wrote: The next is that the story can be interpreted as a kind of satire, even a comedy. What could be more arrogant than rebuilding or summoning Christ? And yet what Christian would not desire, at some level, for that to happen? (Perhaps not a modern one, but certainly a medieval one.)

On 3/15/2012 1:31 PM, James Wynn wrote: On 3/15/2012 7:56 AM, Lee Berman wrote:

But, heresy aside, can such views be considered as leaning toward gnostic?

I don't think so. Not in themselves. Wolfe's off-hand proposition that the gods were "real" in some way but not deserving of worship would only be directly tied to conventional gnosticism if he double-down and stated that the gods were also the direct creators of the universe or the planet. Many Greek philosophers opined that their gods had been kings around whom cults had formed. Paul thought they were demons or fallen angels who paid no attention to the sacrifices offered to their images. Lewis seems to have toyed with the idea that they were created powerful beings who, again, were unworthy of worship. Wolfe's comment demonstrates that he is a mythopoetist--that he believes the myths carry significant truths --spiritual truths-- just as electronic protocols carry data. For more understanding of what he believes about mythology, study Green's conversation with his psychiatrist in There Are Doors.

On 3/15/2012 2:13 PM, Jeff Wilson wrote: On 3/15/2012 9:39 AM, David Stockhoff wrote:

The next is that the story can be interpreted as a kind of satire, even a comedy. What could be more arrogant than rebuilding or summoning Christ? And yet what Christian would not desire, at some level, for that to happen? (Perhaps not a modern one, but certainly a medieval one.)

This is not the least common take on things, with people misguidedly seeking to possess or coerce their divine benefactor rather than follow his example. It is repeated in UOTNS with Apu Punchau, in the Ray Bradbury story, "The Man", the Terence Stamp/Udo Kier film, Revelation, and even the comic G vs E series had the agents trying to earn enough points to win a personal meeting with JC Himself.

I believe the difference is quite clear. While 'proselytising' authors present their worldview as being superior - which is quite lame and irritating, since the reader has no control over events and can merely, aware of it or not, watch them unfold in the way the author wants them to so they will support the author's views -, authors like Wolfe build upon their worldview to enrich their work, not to dictate its shape. I don't think one needs to share Wolfe's beliefs, or even tolerate them, or even find them interesting, in order to derive pleasure from Wolfe's work. Wolfe is not writing books to show Catholicism is great or offend non-Catholics, at all. Wolfe's stories do not unfold in certain ways so that catholic ideals are vindicated and others put to shame. Rather I think his perspective on religion poses certain questions and provides certain answers, and he tries to build on that in order to weave more questions and a number of equally valid answers into his work. If you happen to share his beliefs, you'll find that certain questions and answers resonate and lead you to an increased appreciation of those same beliefs, but if you don't, you're only losing because you can't enjoy resonance of something you don't have, not because someone is locking you out or trying to influence you. I'm very ignorant of Lewis in order to know how he compares. I know Tolkien well enough to have much the same opinion of him as I have of Wolfe - though I also see a lot of differences. No dia 14/03/2012, ?s 22:36, Daniel Petersen < danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> escreveu: Well, I'm way behind in all the gritty details of this debate, but (that's where you all stop reading - ach, well)... Just because Wolfe is no Card (is that a pun?) doesn't mean he can't be a clearly spiritual (and, dare I say it, 'evangelistic') writer in his own way. I, at least, have found a richly rendered 'incarnational' and 'improvisational' sort of 'apologia' and 'euangelion' (yes, radically distinct in many important ways from the likes of Chesterton or Lewis) IN THE TEXTS of the Solar Cycle, an invitational and 'subversive' Christian orthodoxy and orthopraxy (be they ever so slyly idiosyncratic) that basically 'triumphs' over all the other systems (e.g. from polytheism to gnosticism) in a theo-comedic 'underdog' sort of way (for those who wish to see it - Wolfe is no bully). [Akin to St Paul's 'cosmic judo' sort of atonement theology in Colossians 2:15<http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%202:13-19&version=NIV> .] I believe that this being the case in no way shuts down or closes the 'infinite play of meaning' that his narratives clearly intend to induce. But it does give that play certain contours and trajectories if we want to acknowledge them. I hope to write about it in more detail some day... -DOJP _______________________________________________

James Wynn: Wolfe's off-hand proposition that the gods were "real" in some way but not deserving of worship would only be directly tied to conventional gnosticism if he double-down and stated that the gods were also the direct creators of the universe or the planet. Many Greek philosophers opined that their gods had been kings around whom cults had formed. Paul thought they were demons or fallen angels..

As though poised midway between heaven and hell, the Green Man is a god-demon. He is a wholly masculine concept representing the spiritual power of the plant kingdom; there is no "Green Woman". He bridges the gap between the ancient gods and goddesses of forest and field, and the era of religious thought based on a more truly spiritual understanding ?as distinct from merely a religious set of beliefs....The Green Man stands at the gateway of the great divide between the kingdoms of animals and plants, and the alluring world of >materiality. Like Janus, the two-faced Roman god of doorways, he guards this gate and looks both ways at once. [or 4 ways, a la Quadrifons?]

On 3/15/2012 7:56 AM, Lee Berman wrote:

But, heresy aside, can such views be considered as leaning toward gnostic?

On 3/15/2012 1:31 PM, James Wynn wrote: I don't think so. Not in themselves. Wolfe's off-hand proposition that the gods were "real" in some way but not deserving of worship would only be directly tied to conventional gnosticism if he double-down and stated that the gods were also the direct creators of the universe or the planet.

On 3/15/2012 1:16 PM, David Stockhoff wrote: Interestingly, it has been proposed here that the Yesodis may have created their own whatever-it-is they live in or on. Does that count as world-creation?

Elsewhere in the cycle, planets ruled by single beings are mentioned. The "giant" of The Legend of XI Cygnus is one. But they are not described as creators, though they do resemble archons in a way.

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote: Yes, said better than I did. ?However, now I'm wanting to qualify: ?let's not de-fang the Wolfe. ?He has bite and we shouldn't begrudge him that. ?If some writer clearly portrays Marxism or Secular Humanism in his or her work, so many readers have a tendency to praise this as clever and wise and somehow morally commendable. ?But when a Christian author does the same with their faith, well, it had at least better not be too overt and should definitely be open-ended, etc. ?As I say, I do think Wolfe is marvelously generous and humble about 'sharing' his faith in his fiction (to reduce a very complex artistry to a cliche - apologies), but I do think his overall body of work is fairly clearly pointing in the direction of Catholicism being true and good and the 'way of salvation'. ?AND THAT'S FINE. ?(Mind, that an 'evangelical' 'Protestant' is saying this - by some lights I should be drawing my dagger.) ?It would have been just as fine if the work had pointed in some other direction - atheism or Hinduism or whatever. ?An author is well within his or her 'artistic rights' to signal such trajectories provided there is an integrity to the craft that shows a real respect to the intelligence and diversity of readerly viewpoints. It's ridiculous that I have to spell out 'permission' for Wolfe or any other writer this way - but I know for a fact that a whiff of any definite Christian belief in fiction turns many readers off - my creative writing instructor just last night expressed her disdain for Narnia once she discovered that the wonderful fantasy she'd read as a child turned out to be Christian in theme. ?If she had a beef with the artistry that would be completely understandable, but her critique was couched only in terms of the 'religious faith' the works evinced. ?In my opinion, that is not a good reason to dislike a work. ?I'll say it again, I love some atheist writing because it is so well written AND because their 'message' is powerfully wrought and challenging (NOT because there is no message at all or because it is barely discernible and I can easily ignore it if I want to) - and I abhor other atheist writing because the craft is poor and/or the 'message' is smug and/or brow-beating and/or lacks nuance and rich 'embodiment'. “If a work of art is an overt, beautiful, powerful statement of the artist's worldview and a deep challenge to my own - why should I shrink from that” “Why should any of us” PLEASE (EVERYONE) LISTEN TO THIS IF NOTHING ELSE: I'm worried that some here can only stomach Wolfe if he can be kept ambiguous about Catholic orthodoxy and that if it could ever be shown that HIS FICTION clearly 'favours' the Church, then they would be out. ?I'm beginning to wonder if the need to keep that at bay fuels a lot of the debate here. ?If so, I think it mistaken. ?We could easily accept that his work points this way and the discussion and analysis would be FAR from done with - so very far. ?If that's not the case and people are arguing for a non-Catholic or Catholic-ambiguous reading of Wolfe because they genuinely see the evidence pointing that way - and if they became convinced otherwise, they would NOT then abandon the discussion - then that is, of course, very different. ?No one needs my stamp of approval for anything I realise. ?I'm just airing this opinion. -DOJP 2012/3/15 Ant?nio Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com>

I believe the difference is quite clear. While 'proselytising' authors present their worldview as being superior - which is quite lame and irritating, since the reader has no control over events and can merely, aware of it or not, watch them unfold in the way the author wants them to so they will support the author's views -, authors like Wolfe build upon their worldview to enrich their work, not to dictate its shape. I don't think one needs to share Wolfe's beliefs, or even tolerate them, or even find them interesting, in order to derive pleasure from Wolfe's work. Wolfe is not writing books to show Catholicism is great or offend non-Catholics, at all. Wolfe's stories do not unfold in certain ways so that catholic ideals are vindicated and others put to shame. Rather I think his perspective on religion poses certain questions and provides certain answers, and he tries to build on that in order to weave more questions and a number of equally valid answers into his work. If you happen to share his beliefs, you'll find that certain questions and answers resonate and lead you to an increased appreciation of those same beliefs, but if you don't, you're only losing because you can't enjoy resonance of something you don't have, not because someone is locking you out or trying to influence you. I'm very ignorant of Lewis in order to know how he compares. I know Tolkien well enough to have much the same opinion of him as I have of Wolfe - though I also see a lot of differences. No dia 14/03/2012, ?s 22:36, Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> escreveu: Well, I'm way behind in all the gritty details of this debate, but (that's where you all stop reading - ach, well)... Just because Wolfe is no Card (is that a pun?) doesn't mean he can't be a clearly spiritual (and, dare I say it, 'evangelistic') writer in his own way. ?I, at least, have found a richly rendered 'incarnational' and 'improvisational' sort of 'apologia' and 'euangelion' (yes, radically distinct in many important ways from the likes of Chesterton or Lewis) IN THE TEXTS of the Solar Cycle, an invitational and 'subversive' Christian orthodoxy and orthopraxy (be they ever so slyly idiosyncratic) that basically 'triumphs' over all the other systems (e.g. from polytheism to gnosticism) in a theo-comedic 'underdog' sort of way (for those who wish to see it - Wolfe is no bully). ?[Akin to St Paul's 'cosmic judo' sort of atonement theology in Colossians 2:15.] I believe that this being the case in no way shuts down or closes the 'infinite play of meaning' that his narratives clearly intend to induce. ?But it does give that play certain contours and trajectories if we want to acknowledge them. I hope to write about it in more detail some day... -DOJP _______________________________________________

On 3/15/2012 2:52 PM, Daniel Petersen wrote: It's ridiculous that I have to spell out 'permission' for Wolfe or any other writer this way - but I know for a fact that a whiff of any definite Christian belief in fiction turns many readers off - my creative writing instructor just last night expressed her disdain for Narnia once she discovered that the wonderful fantasy she'd read as a child turned out to be Christian in theme. If she had a beef with the artistry that would be completely understandable, but her critique was couched only in terms of the 'religious faith' the works evinced. In my opinion, that is not a good reason to dislike a work. I'll say it again, I love some atheist writing because it is so well written AND because their 'message' is powerfully wrought and challenging (NOT because there is no message at all or because it is barely discernible and I can easily ignore it if I want to) - and I abhor other atheist writing because the craft is poor and/or the 'message' is smug and/or brow-beating and/or lacks nuance and rich 'embodiment'. If a work of art is an overt, beautiful, powerful statement of the artist's worldview and a deep challenge to my own - why should I shrink from that? Why should any of us?

Daniel Petersen: PLEASE (EVERYONE) LISTEN TO THIS IF NOTHING ELSE: I'm worried that some here can only stomach Wolfe if he can be kept ambiguous about Catholic orthodoxy and that if it could ever be shown that HIS FICTION clearly 'favours' the Church, then they would be out. I'm beginning to wonder if the need to keep that at bay fuels a lot of the debate here.

David Stockhoff wrote: Narnia disappointed me in the same way at the same age.

This was partly because I already had developed an antipathy toward received wisdom of all kinds, which included my parents' Presbyterianism,

and partly because once you "get it," nearly all the books after the first (or first three at least) turn to cardboard.

Only the first is consistently told with a level of artistic ambiguity an adult can appreciate or tries (successfully) to capture the wonder of a child discovering literature and its intrinsic worth.

By the time I reached the end of the last book, I was angry at Lewis for treating the dwarves the way he did simply because the rigid blueprint for his story needed scapegoats: if you have a Last Judgment, you have to have some bodies to throw into the flaming pit. Fuck that.

So maybe your creative writing teacher is actually judging Lewis on his artistic merits after all, not just her culturally-programmed aversion response. It may be difficult for her to tell the difference, herself. But do you really think Lewis's main strengths (or intentions) were literary? No more than Tolkien's, I think.

Lee Berman wrote: Just as a thought experiment, what would the reverse bring for you? What if there was, say, a deathbed confession by Wolfe that all his work was meant to subvert belief in Christ and promote worship of Satan or Dionysus. Would you be out?

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>wrote: Lee Berman wrote:

Just as a thought experiment, what would the reverse bring for you? What if there was, say, a deathbed confession by Wolfe that all his work was meant to subvert belief in Christ and promote worship of Satan or Dionysus.

Would you be out? Not speaking for Daniel here, but I would be out. I can't be having with that. I have no problem with open atheism, or even paganism, but at outright Satanism, or deliberate undermining of others' faith, I draw the line. -- Dan'l Danehy-Oakes _______________________________________________

David Stockhoff: By the time I reached the end of the last book, I was angry at Lewis..

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Greg Bates <gregory.a.bates at gmail.com> wrote: Disagree. What Wolfe does or does not believe doesn't change a single word of his writing, why should it change the way I feel about his writing? On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:

Lee Berman wrote:

Just as a thought experiment, what would the reverse bring for you? What if there was, say, a deathbed confession by Wolfe that all his work was meant to subvert belief in Christ and promote worship of Satan or Dionysus. Would you be out?

Not speaking for Daniel here, but I would be out. I can't be having with that. I have no problem with open atheism, or even paganism, but at outright Satanism, or deliberate undermining of others' faith, I draw the line. -- Dan'l Danehy-Oakes _______________________________________________

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>wrote: And you are entirely entitled to that opinon ;) On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Greg Bates <gregory.a.bates at gmail.com> wrote:

Disagree. What Wolfe does or does not believe doesn't change a single word of his writing, why should it change the way I feel about his writing? On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:

Lee Berman wrote:

Just as a thought experiment, what would the reverse bring for you?

What if there was, say, a deathbed confession by Wolfe that all his work was meant to subvert belief in Christ and promote worship of Satan or Dionysus.

Would you be out?

Not speaking for Daniel here, but I would be out. I can't be having with that. I have no problem with open atheism, or even paganism, but at outright Satanism, or deliberate undermining of others' faith, I draw the line. -- Dan'l Danehy-Oakes _______________________________________________

On 3/15/2012 2:16 PM, Lee Berman wrote: James when you discuss the gnostic principle of creator gods who are not God, I am assuming (hopefully correctly) that you are acknowledging the attribution of demonic, perhaps satanic identity to the demiurge. By tying The Outsider to Dionysus, I think Wolfe creates a similar connection of the Outsider to Typhon/Pas as for Dionysus to Pan. (and we know from BotNS that TYphon has some satanic allusions to him). We know that the popular horned-goat image of Satan is derived from a demonization of Dionysus/Great God Pan. Pas, whose name is suggested as derived from Pan, is a clearly demiurgical figure in the creation and rule of the Whorl.

On 3/15/2012 3:40 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: David Stockhoff wrote:

Narnia disappointed me in the same way at the same age.

That is your experience, and I do not seek to devalue it. But...

This was partly because I already had developed an antipathy toward received wisdom of all kinds, which included my parents' Presbyterianism, Well, you admit that you came in with a prejudice, so please consider the following points in that light.

and partly because once you "get it," nearly all the books after the first (or first three at least) turn to cardboard.

I disagree with this completely. As an adult, who understands most-if-not-all of the "allegorical" (I use the scare quotes because Lewis didn't think of it as an allegory; I do) points of reference, I still find the books entrancing and not at all cardboard -- except, of course, for the covers, which are cardboard, but that's another point entirely :)

Only the first is consistently told with a level of artistic ambiguity an adult can appreciate or tries (successfully) to capture the wonder of a child discovering literature and its intrinsic worth.

H'mmm. To me, that's the least ambiguous of the bunch with the possible exception of "The Last Battle." As a child reading the books, I didn't "get it" until the end of TLB, and when I did, the allegorical intent of TLTW&TW became immediately obvious: but I didn't "get" the theology/allegories of the books in-between until I was much older.

By the time I reached the end of the last book, I was angry at Lewis for treating the dwarves the way he did simply because the rigid blueprint for his story needed scapegoats: if you have a Last Judgment, you have to have some bodies to throw into the flaming pit. Fuck that.

Again, I humbly disagree. Lewis makes it clear, both with the dwarfs (and Poggin the dwarf who escapes) and the Calormenes (and Emeth, the Calormene they meet in the Narnia-ly Paradise) that there is, for him, no predestined damnation, that it is a matter of the choices you make, not what you happen to be born as. (Indeed, Emeth might be a predecessor/influence on Wolfe's "good man in a bad religion.")

So maybe your creative writing teacher is actually judging Lewis on his artistic merits after all, not just her culturally-programmed aversion response. It may be difficult for her to tell the difference, herself. But do you really think Lewis's main strengths (or intentions) were literary? No more than Tolkien's, I think.

I think both were very literary writers whose least literary works have been the most popular. Read Lewis's "Till We Have Faces" and come back and tell me his strengths were not literary (or that he was incapable of ambiguity). As for Tolkien I would point to his shorter works like "Leaf by Niggle" and "Smith of Wooton Major" (the latter a huge literary joke).

On 3/15/2012 3:42 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: Lee Berman wrote:

Just as a thought experiment, what would the reverse bring for you? What if there was, say, a deathbed confession by Wolfe that all his work was meant to subvert belief in Christ and promote worship of Satan or Dionysus. Would you be out?

Not speaking for Daniel here, but I would be out. I can't be having with that. I have no problem with open atheism, or even paganism, but at outright Satanism, or deliberate undermining of others' faith, I draw the line.

On 3/15/2012 3:47 PM, Lee Berman wrote: David Stockhoff: By the time I reached the end of the last book, I was angry at Lewis..

Funny, I had a similar experience. Actually I never read Narnia (still true) because my first exposure to Lewis was around age 12 when I was given The Space Trilogy as a gift. Out Of The Silent Planet started out okay, but by the end I was (inexplicably) so angry with the author that I refused to read anything further by him. _______________________________________________

David Stockhoff wrote: My disappointment was not, after all, that Lewis was a Christian. Who cares? I would be equally wary of books written by psychologists. The disappointment lay in his didacticism and dishonesty. What I had been led to believe was one thing was revealed to be another. Whatever aspects of the story I enjoyed were apparently not considered the main point by its author. Worse, Narnia made me think I believed things I did not believe.

On 3/15/2012 5:19 PM, Ant?nio Marques wrote: David Stockhoff wrote:

My disappointment was not, after all, that Lewis was a Christian. Who cares? I would be equally wary of books written by psychologists. The disappointment lay in his didacticism and dishonesty. What I had been led to believe was one thing was revealed to be another. Whatever aspects of the story I enjoyed were apparently not considered the main point by its author. Worse, Narnia made me think I believed things I did not believe.

Regarding this and the hypothetical anti-christian Wolfe (a thought exepriment which I think is by no means new) what I have to say is that, like all demons who turn to be unknowingly doing the work of the Increate, the joke would be on the writer, not on the readers who enjoyed the book. Provided the readers enjoyed the book. If the readers don't enjoy the book [other than fueling their own beliefs], then the joke's both on them and the writer, whether the writer is honest or dissimulate. Iow, if the work is good, it stands, no matter what the author thinks. But I think the odds are very small indeed that a covert author would produce a really good book. In this case, if you like Narnia, then you like it, and realising after the fcat that it is propaganda should only turn you off, I think, if what had made you like it were all the propagandistic bits fitting in with each other. Otherwise, it makes no sense to disown it. Of course, since you say you never liked it all that much, you're just being coherent.

Daniel Petersen wrote: If some writer clearly portrays Marxism or Secular Humanism in his or her work, so many readers have a tendency to praise this as clever and wise and somehow morally commendable. But when a Christian author does the same with their faith, well, it had at least better not be too overt and should definitely be open-ended, etc.

David Stockhoff wrote: On 3/15/2012 5:19 PM, Ant?nio Marques wrote:

David Stockhoff wrote:

My disappointment was not, after all, that Lewis was a Christian. Who cares? I would be equally wary of books written by psychologists. The disappointment lay in his didacticism and dishonesty. What I had been led to believe was one thing was revealed to be another. Whatever aspects of the story I enjoyed were apparently not considered the main point by its author. Worse, Narnia made me think I believed things I did not believe.

Regarding this and the hypothetical anti-christian Wolfe (a thought exepriment which I think is by no means new) what I have to say is that, like all demons who turn to be unknowingly doing the work of the Increate, the joke would be on the writer, not on the readers who enjoyed the book. Provided the readers enjoyed the book. If the readers don't enjoy the book [other than fueling their own beliefs], then the joke's both on them and the writer, whether the writer is honest or dissimulate. Iow, if the work is good, it stands, no matter what the author thinks. But I think the odds are very small indeed that a covert author would produce a really good book. In this case, if you like Narnia, then you like it, and realising after the fcat that it is propaganda should only turn you off, I think, if what had made you like it were all the propagandistic bits fitting in with each other. Otherwise, it makes no sense to disown it. Of course, since you say you never liked it all that much, you're just being coherent.

Actually, I think a covert author is quite capable of producing a really good book, IF the necessity for covertness is externally imposed.

After that, I'm not sure I'm following you, Antonio. I think my logic might not quite fit into the box you have made for it.

What I liked about Narnia was probably not in fact all the "bits" fitting together, which I would identify most prominently as the personal, moral choices characters had to make. Those were uninteresting and contrived, and, I felt, increasingly so.

If I felt betrayed, it was not because I fell in love with the Narnia of the books after LWW, but because I gave Lewis the benefit of the doubt after having betrayed the first time, after LWW, and obtained some partial enjoyment as a result. The discovery of propaganda did not come after the fact, but in the course of reading. I stuck it out nevertheless. TLB revealed what was, to me, the mendacity of Lewis's project.

Ant?nio Marques wrote: Daniel Petersen wrote:

If some writer clearly portrays Marxism or Secular Humanism in his or her work, so many readers have a tendency to praise this as clever and wise and somehow morally commendable. But when a Christian author does the same with their faith, well, it had at least better not be too overt and should definitely be open-ended, etc.

For me, the question is a different one. I see three patterns when it comes to an author's beliefs: - Preaching to the choir: honest but doesn't interest me, even when I'm part of the choir. I hear there are a number of christian writers who do it. - Covert preaching: dishonest and unintereresting because it's generally nearisghted and sterile. That's what I usually see 'secular' authors doing. - Faith/belief/worldview-inspired (emotionally and intellectually): that's where authors like Wolfe stand for me. Not any secularist that I can think of - well, I like Eco. Borges claimed to be an unbeliever, but he was certainly not a secularist. So it's not a matter of legitimacy to preach or not. I interpret the above as your saying 2 is considered OK by the establishment while 1 is only barely tolerated if it is in fact 3.

On 3/15/2012 3:40 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: David Stockhoff wrote:

Narnia disappointed me in the same way at the same age.

That is your experience, and I do not seek to devalue it. But...

This was partly because I already had developed an antipathy toward received wisdom of all kinds, which included my parents' Presbyterianism,

On 3/15/2012 1:52 PM, Daniel Petersen wrote: Yes, said better than I did. However, now I'm wanting to qualify: let's not de-fang the Wolfe. He has bite and we shouldn't begrudge him that. If some writer clearly portrays Marxism or Secular Humanism in his or her work, so many readers have a tendency to praise this as clever and wise and somehow morally commendable. But when a Christian author does the same with their faith, well, it had at least better not be too overt and should definitely be open-ended, etc. As I say, I do think Wolfe is marvelously generous and humble about 'sharing' his faith in his fiction (to reduce a very complex artistry to a cliche - apologies), but I do think his overall body of work is fairly clearly pointing in the direction of Catholicism being true and good and the 'way of salvation'. AND THAT'S FINE. (Mind, that an 'evangelical' 'Protestant' is saying this - by some lights I should be drawing my dagger.) It would have been just as fine if the work had pointed in some other direction - atheism or Hinduism or whatever. An author is well within his or her 'artistic rights' to signal such trajectories provided there is an integrity to the craft that shows a real respect to the intelligence and diversity of readerly viewpoints. It's ridiculous that I have to spell out 'permission' for Wolfe or any other writer this way - but I know for a fact that a whiff of any definite Christian belief in fiction turns many readers off - my creative writing instructor just last night expressed her disdain for Narnia once she discovered that the wonderful fantasy she'd read as a child turned out to be Christian in theme. If she had a beef with the artistry that would be completely understandable, but her critique was couched only in terms of the 'religious faith' the works evinced. In my opinion, that is not a good reason to dislike a work. I'll say it again, I love some atheist writing because it is so well written AND because their 'message' is powerfully wrought and challenging (NOT because there is no message at all or because it is barely discernible and I can easily ignore it if I want to) - and I abhor other atheist writing because the craft is poor and/or the 'message' is smug and/or brow-beating and/or lacks nuance and rich 'embodiment'. If a work of art is an overt, beautiful, powerful statement of the artist's worldview and a deep challenge to my own - why should I shrink from that? Why should any of us? PLEASE (EVERYONE) LISTEN TO THIS IF NOTHING ELSE: I'm worried that some here can only stomach Wolfe if he can be kept ambiguous about Catholic orthodoxy and that if it could ever be shown that HIS FICTION clearly 'favours' the Church, then they would be out. I'm beginning to wonder if the need to keep that at bay fuels a lot of the debate here. If so, I think it mistaken. We could easily accept that his work points this way and the discussion and analysis would be FAR from done with - so very far. If that's not the case and people are arguing for a non-Catholic or Catholic-ambiguous reading of Wolfe because they genuinely see the evidence pointing that way - and if they became convinced otherwise, they would NOT then abandon the discussion - then that is, of course, very different. No one needs my stamp of approval for anything I realise. I'm just airing this opinion. -DOJP 2012/3/15 Ant?nio Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com <mailto:entonio at gmail.com>> I believe the difference is quite clear. While 'proselytising' authors present their worldview as being superior - which is quite lame and irritating, since the reader has no control over events and can merely, aware of it or not, watch them unfold in the way the author wants them to so they will support the author's views -, authors like Wolfe build upon their worldview to enrich their work, not to dictate its shape. I don't think one needs to share Wolfe's beliefs, or even tolerate them, or even find them interesting, in order to derive pleasure from Wolfe's work. Wolfe is not writing books to show Catholicism is great or offend non-Catholics, at all. Wolfe's stories do not unfold in certain ways so that catholic ideals are vindicated and others put to shame. Rather I think his perspective on religion poses certain questions and provides certain answers, and he tries to build on that in order to weave more questions and a number of equally valid answers into his work. If you happen to share his beliefs, you'll find that certain questions and answers resonate and lead you to an increased appreciation of those same beliefs, but if you don't, you're only losing because you can't enjoy resonance of something you don't have, not because someone is locking you out or trying to influence you. I'm very ignorant of Lewis in order to know how he compares. I know Tolkien well enough to have much the same opinion of him as I have of Wolfe - though I also see a lot of differences. No dia 14/03/2012, ?s 22:36, Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com <mailto:danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com>> escreveu:

Well, I'm way behind in all the gritty details of this debate, but (that's where you all stop reading - ach, well)... Just because Wolfe is no Card (is that a pun?) doesn't mean he can't be a clearly spiritual (and, dare I say it, 'evangelistic') writer in his own way. I, at least, have found a richly rendered 'incarnational' and 'improvisational' sort of 'apologia' and 'euangelion' (yes, radically distinct in many important ways from the likes of Chesterton or Lewis) /IN THE TEXTS/ of the Solar Cycle, an invitational and 'subversive' Christian orthodoxy and orthopraxy (be they ever so slyly idiosyncratic) that basically 'triumphs' over all the other systems (e.g. from polytheism to gnosticism) in a theo-comedic 'underdog' sort of way (for those who wish to see it - Wolfe is no bully). [Akin to St Paul's 'cosmic judo' sort of atonement theology in Colossians 2:15 <http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%202:13-19&version=NIV>.] I believe that this being the case in no way shuts down or closes the 'infinite play of meaning' that his narratives clearly intend to induce. But it does give that play certain contours and trajectories if we want to acknowledge them. I hope to write about it in more detail some day... -DOJP

_______________________________________________

Greg wrote: Disagree. What Wolfe does or does not believe doesn't change a single word of his writing, why should it change the way I feel about his writing?

Lee Berman wrote:

Just as a thought experiment, what would the reverse bring for you? What if there was, say, a deathbed confession by Wolfe that all his work was meant to subvert belief in Christ and promote worship of Satan or Dionysus. Would you be out?

Not speaking for Daniel here, but I would be out. I can't be having with that. I have no problem with open atheism, or even paganism, but at outright Satanism, or deliberate undermining of others' faith, I draw the line. -- Dan'l Danehy-Oakes _______________________________________________ Urth Mailing List To post, write urth at urth.net Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 4:22 PM, James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> wrote: For the record, I never had any problem seeing the allegorical parts in LWW or the Silver Chair (the most allegorical of all the stories). TLB is not even allegorical. It's merely eschatological. Given who Aslan was revealed to be in "The Magician's Nephew", it is inevitable that he would play the role he did at the end of the the Narnian world. If one sees materialism as an "oppositional identity" to Christianity (and all young materialist in the West do because that is almost always their only counter-example), then you are likely to feel chaffing at Aslan's role in TLB. But Aslan's plays the same role in TLB as he does in ALL the other book. He shows up at the end to sort things out and sends the characters on their way. But only if one associates End-of-the-World stories SOLELY with Christianity would one suddenly realize in TLB that Aslan is Jesus. But there is sooo much more to Narnia than the Christian allegory. Almost all of it is, as Lewis called it, a stew with lots of familiar flavors rather than a lock-and-key allegory. It's just that there are a few clumps of beefy allegory in there as well. In fact, being young and recognizing the allegories in the story made "The Last Battle" quite confusing for me, I think. Because Lewis has a very idiosyncratic theology (it certainly wouldn't jive with Presbyterianism). If, because of one's youth, he is unaware that there are so many subtle shades of Christian belief, he will surely have a WTH reaction. And I did. So TLB would be better if it were read by an older, more worldly person who can both recognize how different Aslan is from our Standard Jesus and is willing to accept that that is okay. Or someone who has had the time between the first book to the last to familiarize himself with some of Lewis's other writers ("The Great Divorce", "Til We Have Faces", "Pilgrims Regress") J. ______________________________**_________________

On 3/15/2012 5:56 PM, Ant?nio Marques wrote: David Stockhoff wrote:

On 3/15/2012 5:19 PM, Ant?nio Marques wrote:

David Stockhoff wrote:

My disappointment was not, after all, that Lewis was a Christian. Who cares? I would be equally wary of books written by psychologists. The disappointment lay in his didacticism and dishonesty. What I had been led to believe was one thing was revealed to be another. Whatever aspects of the story I enjoyed were apparently not considered the main point by its author. Worse, Narnia made me think I believed things I did not believe.

Regarding this and the hypothetical anti-christian Wolfe (a thought exepriment which I think is by no means new) what I have to say is that, like all demons who turn to be unknowingly doing the work of the Increate, the joke would be on the writer, not on the readers who enjoyed the book. Provided the readers enjoyed the book. If the readers don't enjoy the book [other than fueling their own beliefs], then the joke's both on them and the writer, whether the writer is honest or dissimulate. Iow, if the work is good, it stands, no matter what the author thinks. But I think the odds are very small indeed that a covert author would produce a really good book. In this case, if you like Narnia, then you like it, and realising after the fcat that it is propaganda should only turn you off, I think, if what had made you like it were all the propagandistic bits fitting in with each other. Otherwise, it makes no sense to disown it. Of course, since you say you never liked it all that much, you're just being coherent.

Actually, I think a covert author is quite capable of producing a really good book, IF the necessity for covertness is externally imposed.

That part of my argument should have used 'dishonest' rather than 'covert'.

After that, I'm not sure I'm following you, Antonio. I think my logic might not quite fit into the box you have made for it.

Gee, that could be because I made no box for it. I made a box for a specific case. If it isn't yours, it isn't. Oh - I see I used the 'impersonal you' again. Sorry, even after a number of episodes where it seems to have caused confusion, it seems it's crept into my english and I don't even notice when I shouldn't be using it.

What I liked about Narnia was probably not in fact all the "bits" fitting together, which I would identify most prominently as the personal, moral choices characters had to make. Those were uninteresting and contrived, and, I felt, increasingly so.

Correct. What I said above is that someone who didn't like that aspect of it from the start shouldn't be feeling betrayed by it. Someone who did, could feel betrayed, but should also think 'I should have known better'.

If I felt betrayed, it was not because I fell in love with the Narnia of the books after LWW, but because I gave Lewis the benefit of the doubt after having betrayed the first time, after LWW, and obtained some partial enjoyment as a result. The discovery of propaganda did not come after the fact, but in the course of reading. I stuck it out nevertheless. TLB revealed what was, to me, the mendacity of Lewis's project.

Would you say you felt more betrayed by Lewis than by Narnia itself? Or did the creature turn out to be unwelcome itself? Or - did the final book do away with the 'illusion of depth' you had managed to keep regarding the bits you liked?

On 3/15/2012 6:06 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote: From: David Stockhoff <mailto:dstockhoff at verizon.net> On 3/15/2012 3:40 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:

David Stockhoff wrote:

Narnia disappointed me in the same way at the same age.

That is your experience, and I do not seek to devalue it. But...

This was partly because I already had developed an antipathy toward received wisdom of all kinds, which included my parents' Presbyterianism, I remember being cheesed off by The Last Battle. I think it was largely that the magical world and characters turned out to be cogs in the scheme of the author. There was an element of antipathy towards received wisdom there too, I suspect.

- Gerry Quinn

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote: Yes, said better than I did. ?However, now I'm wanting to qualify: ?let's not de-fang the Wolfe. ?He has bite and we shouldn't begrudge him that. ?If some writer clearly portrays Marxism or Secular Humanism in his or her work, so many readers have a tendency to praise this as clever and wise and somehow morally commendable. ?But when a Christian author does the same with their faith, well, it had at least better not be too overt and should definitely be open-ended, etc. ?As I say, I do think Wolfe is marvelously generous and humble about 'sharing' his faith in his fiction (to reduce a very complex artistry to a cliche - apologies), but I do think his overall body of work is fairly clearly pointing in the direction of Catholicism being true and good and the 'way of salvation'. ?AND THAT'S FINE. ?(Mind, that an 'evangelical' 'Protestant' is saying this - by some lights I should be drawing my dagger.) ?It would have been just as fine if the work had pointed in some other direction - atheism or Hinduism or whatever. ?An author is well within his or her 'artistic rights' to signal such trajectories provided there is an integrity to the craft that shows a real respect to the intelligence and diversity of readerly viewpoints. It's ridiculous that I have to spell out 'permission' for Wolfe or any other writer this way - but I know for a fact that a whiff of any definite Christian belief in fiction turns many readers off - my creative writing instructor just last night expressed her disdain for Narnia once she discovered that the wonderful fantasy she'd read as a child turned out to be Christian in theme. ?If she had a beef with the artistry that would be completely understandable, but her critique was couched only in terms of the 'religious faith' the works evinced. ?In my opinion, that is not a good reason to dislike a work. ?I'll say it again, I love some atheist writing because it is so well written AND because their 'message' is powerfully wrought and challenging (NOT because there is no message at all or because it is barely discernible and I can easily ignore it if I want to) - and I abhor other atheist writing because the craft is poor and/or the 'message' is smug and/or brow-beating and/or lacks nuance and rich 'embodiment'. “If a work of art is an overt, beautiful, powerful statement of the artist's worldview and a deep challenge to my own - why should I shrink from that” “Why should any of us” PLEASE (EVERYONE) LISTEN TO THIS IF NOTHING ELSE: I'm worried that some here can only stomach Wolfe if he can be kept ambiguous about Catholic orthodoxy and that if it could ever be shown that HIS FICTION clearly 'favours' the Church, then they would be out. ?I'm beginning to wonder if the need to keep that at bay fuels a lot of the debate here. ?If so, I think it mistaken. ?We could easily accept that his work points this way and the discussion and analysis would be FAR from done with - so very far. ?If that's not the case and people are arguing for a non-Catholic or Catholic-ambiguous reading of Wolfe because they genuinely see the evidence pointing that way - and if they became convinced otherwise, they would NOT then abandon the discussion - then that is, of course, very different. ?No one needs my stamp of approval for anything I realise. ?I'm just airing this opinion. -DOJP 2012/3/15 Ant?nio Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com>

I believe the difference is quite clear. While 'proselytising' authors present their worldview as being superior - which is quite lame and irritating, since the reader has no control over events and can merely, aware of it or not, watch them unfold in the way the author wants them to so they will support the author's views -, authors like Wolfe build upon their worldview to enrich their work, not to dictate its shape. I don't think one needs to share Wolfe's beliefs, or even tolerate them, or even find them interesting, in order to derive pleasure from Wolfe's work. Wolfe is not writing books to show Catholicism is great or offend non-Catholics, at all. Wolfe's stories do not unfold in certain ways so that catholic ideals are vindicated and others put to shame. Rather I think his perspective on religion poses certain questions and provides certain answers, and he tries to build on that in order to weave more questions and a number of equally valid answers into his work. If you happen to share his beliefs, you'll find that certain questions and answers resonate and lead you to an increased appreciation of those same beliefs, but if you don't, you're only losing because you can't enjoy resonance of something you don't have, not because someone is locking you out or trying to influence you. I'm very ignorant of Lewis in order to know how he compares. I know Tolkien well enough to have much the same opinion of him as I have of Wolfe - though I also see a lot of differences. No dia 14/03/2012, ?s 22:36, Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> escreveu: Well, I'm way behind in all the gritty details of this debate, but (that's where you all stop reading - ach, well)... Just because Wolfe is no Card (is that a pun?) doesn't mean he can't be a clearly spiritual (and, dare I say it, 'evangelistic') writer in his own way. ?I, at least, have found a richly rendered 'incarnational' and 'improvisational' sort of 'apologia' and 'euangelion' (yes, radically distinct in many important ways from the likes of Chesterton or Lewis) IN THE TEXTS of the Solar Cycle, an invitational and 'subversive' Christian orthodoxy and orthopraxy (be they ever so slyly idiosyncratic) that basically 'triumphs' over all the other systems (e.g. from polytheism to gnosticism) in a theo-comedic 'underdog' sort of way (for those who wish to see it - Wolfe is no bully). ?[Akin to St Paul's 'cosmic judo' sort of atonement theology in Colossians 2:15.] I believe that this being the case in no way shuts down or closes the 'infinite play of meaning' that his narratives clearly intend to induce. ?But it does give that play certain contours and trajectories if we want to acknowledge them. I hope to write about it in more detail some day... -DOJP _______________________________________________ Urth Mailing List To post, write urth at urth.net Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

_______________________________________________ Urth Mailing List To post, write urth at urth.net Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

On 3/15/2012 7:22 PM, James Wynn wrote: For the record, I never had any problem seeing the allegorical parts in LWW or the Silver Chair (the most allegorical of all the stories). TLB is not even allegorical. It's merely eschatological. Given who Aslan was revealed to be in "The Magician's Nephew", it is inevitable that he would play the role he did at the end of the the Narnian world. If one sees materialism as an "oppositional identity" to Christianity (and all young materialist in the West do because that is almost always their only counter-example), then you are likely to feel chaffing at Aslan's role in TLB. But Aslan's plays the same role in TLB as he does in ALL the other book. He shows up at the end to sort things out and sends the characters on their way. But only if one associates End-of-the-World stories SOLELY with Christianity would one suddenly realize in TLB that Aslan is Jesus. But there is sooo much more to Narnia than the Christian allegory. Almost all of it is, as Lewis called it, a stew with lots of familiar flavors rather than a lock-and-key allegory. It's just that there are a few clumps of beefy allegory in there as well. In fact, being young and recognizing the allegories in the story made "The Last Battle" quite confusing for me, I think. Because Lewis has a very idiosyncratic theology (it certainly wouldn't jive with Presbyterianism). If, because of one's youth, he is unaware that there are so many subtle shades of Christian belief, he will surely have a WTH reaction. And I did. So TLB would be better if it were read by an older, more worldly person who can both recognize how different Aslan is from our Standard Jesus and is willing to accept that that is okay. Or someone who has had the time between the first book to the last to familiarize himself with some of Lewis's other writers ("The Great Divorce", "Til We Have Faces", "Pilgrims Regress")

On 3/15/2012 6:26 PM, Matthew Weber wrote: Lewis' theology, idiosyncratic? I'd characterize it as broadly catholic and orthodox, though I can see where the hyper-Reformed might have problems with it.

On 3/15/2012 7:46 PM, Craig Brewer wrote: Yep. I'm not Catholic, but it doesn't really matter. I don't like Wolfe because I believe him or have to share his worldview. I'm not looking to have myself confirmed in someone else's fiction. But those who read him with a real eye for a kind of esoteric knowledge or even for certain gnostic insights might. But those readings also often overlook the story in favor of the background.

On 3/15/2012 8:17 PM, James Wynn wrote: On 3/15/2012 6:26 PM, Matthew Weber wrote:

Lewis' theology, idiosyncratic? I'd characterize it as broadly catholic and orthodox, though I can see where the hyper-Reformed might have problems with it.

Um...I think he recognized that his views were enough at variance with the beliefs of his fellow-travellers** that it merited noting the fact. And he certainly did note it in "The Great Divorce" during his conversation with George MacDonald. Nowadays, one will easily find practicing Catholics and Protestants who find Aslan's conversation with the Tash-worshipper to be sensitive and insightful. I doubt that would have been nearly so common in 1960. Educated Catholics like to think of the Church as being "universalistic" regarding Soterology (and thus more rational than Reformed and Fundamentalist sects) and it probably is in their experience. But that certainly wasn't my experience growing up in a small Ohio town that was probably 75% Catholic. Nor is that the experience described by my friends who went to parochial school. The message was clear and emphatic: "Outside The Church There Is No Salvation". **"fellow-travelers" is defined here as Christians who were broadly "evangelical" in that they considered both Faith and non-belief to be an active, personal decision rather than a cultural ritual "Outside The Church There Is No Salvation" ... but there is nothing outside the Church, so how do we know that "Outside The Church There Is

Nowadays, one will easily find practicing Catholics and Protestants who find Aslan's conversation with the Tash-worshipper to be sensitive and insightful. I doubt that would have been nearly so common in 1960. Educated Catholics like to think of the Church as being "universalistic" regarding Soterology (and thus more rational than Reformed and Fundamentalist sects) and it probably is in their experience. But that certainly wasn't my experience growing up in a small Ohio town that was probably 75% Catholic. Nor is that the experience described by my friends who went to parochial school. The message was clear and emphatic: "Outside The Church There Is No Salvation".

On 3/15/2012 8:17 PM, James Wynn wrote:

On 3/15/2012 6:26 PM, Matthew Weber wrote:

Lewis' theology, idiosyncratic? I'd characterize it as broadly catholic and orthodox, though I can see where the hyper-Reformed might have problems with it.

Um...I think he recognized that his views were enough at variance with the beliefs of his fellow-travellers** that it merited noting the fact. And he certainly did note it in "The Great Divorce" during his conversation with George MacDonald. Nowadays, one will easily find practicing Catholics and Protestants who find Aslan's conversation with the Tash-worshipper to be sensitive and insightful. I doubt that would have been nearly so common in 1960. Educated Catholics like to think of the Church as being "universalistic" regarding Soterology (and thus more rational than Reformed and Fundamentalist sects) and it probably is in their experience. But that certainly wasn't my experience growing up in a small Ohio town that was probably 75% Catholic. Nor is that the experience described by my friends who went to parochial school. The message was clear and emphatic: "Outside The Church There Is No Salvation". **"fellow-travelers" is defined here as Christians who were broadly "evangelical" in that they considered both Faith and non-belief to be an active, personal decision rather than a cultural ritual "Outside The Church There Is No Salvation" ... but there is nothing outside the Church, so how do we know that "Outside The Church There Is No Salvation"? Because there is nothing outside the Church! But ...

I think have read quite a few stories about that paradox, without guessing the inspiration. Also, btw: Tash was always a favorite episode of mine. And George MacDonald is another didactic fantasy writer who often just completely fails to grab me. I am not surprised to hear he and Lewis were pals.

On 3/15/2012 10:32 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote: Wasn't MacDonald a good half century older? And he was one of those mollified Presbyterians. But is it fair to criticise didacticism which didn't pretend to be anything else? I mean, neither MacDonald nor Lewis, that I know of, tried to present their books as doctrinally free. At least MacDonald was overt as to their didactic nature. It isn't Lewis's fault if the Narnia books got popular that they were pushed everywhere as mere children's books without a caveat that they were had a religious undercurrent. Maybe the real issue is that they are popular because that undercurrent pleases people, just as Praise of Empire pleased others, and those who take exception to that way of writing resent the popularity.

On 3/15/2012 10:32 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote: Wasn't MacDonald a good half century older? And he was one of those mollified Presbyterians. But is it fair to criticise didacticism which didn't pretend to be anything else? I mean, neither MacDonald nor Lewis, that I know of, tried to present their books as doctrinally free. At least MacDonald was overt as to their didactic nature. It isn't Lewis's fault if the Narnia books got popular that they were pushed everywhere as mere children's books without a caveat that they were had a religious undercurrent. Maybe the real issue is that they are popular because that undercurrent pleases people, just as Praise of Empire pleased others, and those who take exception to that way of writing resent the popularity.

On 3/15/2012 10:51 PM, Craig Brewer wrote: Phantastes was a beautiful book! Never besmirch the name of MacDonald! heh heh... As someone who was raised in a relatively a-religious family, I usually just ignored the obviously religious bits of Lewis/Tolkien/whoever else. But as I got older, I found that the non-"preachy" manner of fictional Christian works actually worked to explain why faith was interesting and attractive. After all, here was some fantasy that might be real on a certain level, or at least a number of people thought so. That's a perspective I've had trouble explaining to friends who had that "betrayal" reaction to Narnia. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 9:42 PM Subject: Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es) On 3/15/2012 10:32 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:

Wasn't MacDonald a good half century older? And he was one of those mollified Presbyterians. But is it fair to criticise didacticism which didn't pretend to be anything else? I mean, neither MacDonald nor Lewis, that I know of, tried to present their books as doctrinally free. At least MacDonald was overt as to their didactic nature. It isn't Lewis's fault if the Narnia books got popular that they were pushed everywhere as mere children's books without a caveat that they were had a religious undercurrent. Maybe the real issue is that they are popular because that undercurrent pleases people, just as Praise of Empire pleased others, and those who take exception to that way of writing resent the popularity.

Well, if it's boring, it's boring. And it depends on what you mean by "didn't pretend"---as with Lewis, most of his readers were children. If you have no idea what you might be reading, you can't know whether it's pretense or not. Certainly Lewis wasn't responsible for whatever marketing got his books in my local library and into my hands. But I doubt they were and are popular because they are religious: rather, they probably are popular because they are accessible, imaginative (sometimes magical, as you said), action-packed, well-written, comforting (Aslan always appeared to set things right), and morally nonthreatening. Girls read them as much as boys did, and no parents objected to them. _______________________________________________

But in a literary world populated by Dr. Cranes, that could be seen as a form of subversion.

David Stockhoff: Possibly. It's true that many of the Golden Age SF writers were Jewish. But look at how many fantasy writers were overtly Christian.

Severian's narrative shows any number of gnostic trappings. The culture that is its setting, beginning with the mysteries of the guild where he was raised, clearly values secrets over the sharing of knowledge. He repeatedly hides and reveals, hides and reveals in his own narration.

On 3/16/2012 8:09 AM, David Stockhoff wrote: I'm not sure which of MacDonald's books I consider stilted and boring, although I encountered those as an adult. But I loved the Curdie books my mom read to me when I was four or five. On 3/15/2012 10:51 PM, Craig Brewer wrote:

Phantastes was a beautiful book! Never besmirch the name of MacDonald! heh heh... As someone who was raised in a relatively a-religious family, I usually just ignored the obviously religious bits of Lewis/Tolkien/whoever else. But as I got older, I found that the non-"preachy" manner of fictional Christian works actually worked to explain why faith was interesting and attractive. After all, here was some fantasy that might be real on a certain level, or at least a number of people thought so. That's a perspective I've had trouble explaining to friends who had that "betrayal" reaction to Narnia. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 9:42 PM Subject: Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es) On 3/15/2012 10:32 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:

Wasn't MacDonald a good half century older? And he was one of those mollified Presbyterians. But is it fair to criticise didacticism which didn't pretend to be anything else? I mean, neither MacDonald nor Lewis, that I know of, tried to present their books as doctrinally free. At least MacDonald was overt as to their didactic nature. It isn't Lewis's fault if the Narnia books got popular that they were pushed everywhere as mere children's books without a caveat that they were had a religious undercurrent. Maybe the real issue is that they are popular because that undercurrent pleases people, just as Praise of Empire pleased others, and those who take exception to that way of writing resent the popularity.

Well, if it's boring, it's boring. And it depends on what you mean by "didn't pretend"---as with Lewis, most of his readers were children. If you have no idea what you might be reading, you can't know whether it's pretense or not. Certainly Lewis wasn't responsible for whatever marketing got his books in my local library and into my hands. But I doubt they were and are popular because they are religious: rather, they probably are popular because they are accessible, imaginative (sometimes magical, as you said), action-packed, well-written, comforting (Aslan always appeared to set things right), and morally nonthreatening. Girls read them as much as boys did, and no parents objected to them. _______________________________________________

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 7:30 PM, Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com>wrote:

Daniel Petersen: PLEASE (EVERYONE) LISTEN TO THIS IF NOTHING ELSE: I'm worried that some here can only stomach Wolfe if he can be kept ambiguous about Catholic orthodoxy and that if it could ever be shown that HIS FICTION clearly 'favours' the Church, then they would be out. I'm beginning to wonder if the need to keep that at bay fuels a lot of the debate here.

Daniel, there has been much militant atheism found in the media in the past few years so I understand your concern. I don't think it is has a good basis when it comes to the Lupiverse though. Consider Peter Wright who, in Attending Daedalus, takes a deeply analytical view of BotNS which is entirely secular. Despite Wright's atheist leanings I don't think he is any less of a Wolfe fan when forced to acknowledge Wolfe's Christian influences on his writing. I suspect the same is true for any militant atheists who happen to reside here. Just as a thought experiment, what would the reverse bring for you? What if there was, say, a deathbed confession by Wolfe that all his work was meant to subvert belief in Christ and promote worship of Satan or Dionysus. Would you be out? _______________________________________________

On 3/15/2012 10:51 PM, Craig Brewer wrote: Phantastes was a beautiful book! Never besmirch the name of MacDonald! heh heh...

As someone who was raised in a relatively a-religious family, I usually just ignored the obviously religious bits of Lewis/Tolkien/whoever else. But as I got older, I found that the non-"preachy" manner of fictional Christian works actually worked to explain why faith was interesting and attractive. After all, here was some fantasy that might be real on a certain level, or at least a number of people thought so. That's a perspective I've had trouble explaining to friends who had that "betrayal" reaction to Narnia. ________________________________ From: David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 9:42 PM Subject: Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es) On 3/15/2012 10:32 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:

Wasn't MacDonald a good half century older? And he was one of those mollified Presbyterians. But is it fair to criticise didacticism which didn't

Well, if it's boring, it's boring. And it depends on what you mean by "didn't pretend"---as with Lewis, most of his readers were children. If you have no idea what you might be reading, you can't know whether it's pretense or not. Certainly Lewis wasn't responsible for whatever marketing got his books in my local library and into my hands. But I doubt they were and are popular because they are religious: rather, they probably are popular because they are accessible, imaginative (sometimes magical, as you said), action-packed, well-written, comforting (Aslan always appeared to set things right), and morally nonthreatening. Girls read them as much as boys did, and no parents objected to them. _______________________________________________ Urth Mailing List To post, write urth at urth.net Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net _______________________________________________

_______________________________________________

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:11 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF <dstockhoff at verizon.net>wrote: Golden Key: THAT's the one. Dull, dull, dull, dull, dull. ;) ------------------------------ From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 10:19 AM Subject: Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es) Try some of his short stories and novellas: Photogen and Nycteris (aka Day Boy & Night Girl, aka Son of the Day, Daughter of Night) Light Princess (aka Little Daylight) Golden Key Translations for Novalis Lewis and MacDonald never met. But Lewis credited MacDonald's fiction as an important element in his conversion. He (and the reception of his children) were important in the publication of Alice in Wonderland. Although he was a pastor for a time, his sermons and theology got him in trouble and he was eventually pushed out. J. On 3/16/2012 8:09 AM, David Stockhoff wrote: I'm not sure which of MacDonald's books I consider stilted and boring, although I encountered those as an adult. But I loved the Curdie books my mom read to me when I was four or five. On 3/15/2012 10:51 PM, Craig Brewer wrote: Phantastes was a beautiful book! Never besmirch the name of MacDonald! heh heh... As someone who was raised in a relatively a-religious family, I usually just ignored the obviously religious bits of Lewis/Tolkien/whoever else. But as I got older, I found that the non-"preachy" manner of fictional Christian works actually worked to explain why faith was interesting and attractive. After all, here was some fantasy that might be real on a certain level, or at least a number of people thought so. That's a perspective I've had trouble explaining to friends who had that "betrayal" reaction to Narnia. ------------------------------ From: David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net> <dstockhoff at verizon.net> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> <urth at lists.urth.net> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 9:42 PM Subject: Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es) On 3/15/2012 10:32 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:

Wasn't MacDonald a good half century older? And he was one of those mollified Presbyterians. But is it fair to criticise didacticism which didn't pretend to be anything else? I mean, neither MacDonald nor Lewis, that I know of, tried to present their books as doctrinally free. At least MacDonald was overt as to their didactic nature. It isn't Lewis's fault if the Narnia books got popular that they were pushed everywhere as mere children's books without a caveat that they were had a religious undercurrent. Maybe the real issue is that they are popular because that undercurrent pleases people, just as Praise of Empire pleased others, and those who take exception to that way of writing resent the popularity.

Well, if it's boring, it's boring. And it depends on what you mean by "didn't pretend"---as with Lewis, most of his readers were children. If you have no idea what you might be reading, you can't know whether it's pretense or not. Certainly Lewis wasn't responsible for whatever marketing got his books in my local library and into my hands. But I doubt they were and are popular because they are religious: rather, they probably are popular because they are accessible, imaginative (sometimes magical, as you said), action-packed, well-written, comforting (Aslan always appeared to set things right), and morally nonthreatening. Girls read them as much as boys did, and no parents objected to them. _______________________________________________

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Daniel Petersen < danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's the BEST! You have no soul! You are not human, you are machine! (To be honest, it was on a second read that it blew me away.) -DOJP On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:11 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF <dstockhoff at verizon.net>wrote:

Golden Key: THAT's the one. Dull, dull, dull, dull, dull. ;) ------------------------------ From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 10:19 AM Subject: Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es) Try some of his short stories and novellas: Photogen and Nycteris (aka Day Boy & Night Girl, aka Son of the Day, Daughter of Night) Light Princess (aka Little Daylight) Golden Key Translations for Novalis Lewis and MacDonald never met. But Lewis credited MacDonald's fiction as an important element in his conversion. He (and the reception of his children) were important in the publication of Alice in Wonderland. Although he was a pastor for a time, his sermons and theology got him in trouble and he was eventually pushed out. J. On 3/16/2012 8:09 AM, David Stockhoff wrote: I'm not sure which of MacDonald's books I consider stilted and boring, although I encountered those as an adult. But I loved the Curdie books my mom read to me when I was four or five. On 3/15/2012 10:51 PM, Craig Brewer wrote: Phantastes was a beautiful book! Never besmirch the name of MacDonald! heh heh... As someone who was raised in a relatively a-religious family, I usually just ignored the obviously religious bits of Lewis/Tolkien/whoever else. But as I got older, I found that the non-"preachy" manner of fictional Christian works actually worked to explain why faith was interesting and attractive. After all, here was some fantasy that might be real on a certain level, or at least a number of people thought so. That's a perspective I've had trouble explaining to friends who had that "betrayal" reaction to Narnia. ------------------------------ From: David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net> <dstockhoff at verizon.net> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> <urth at lists.urth.net> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 9:42 PM Subject: Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es) On 3/15/2012 10:32 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:

Wasn't MacDonald a good half century older? And he was one of those mollified Presbyterians. But is it fair to criticise didacticism which didn't pretend to be anything else? I mean, neither MacDonald nor Lewis, that I know of, tried to present their books as doctrinally free. At least MacDonald was overt as to their didactic nature. It isn't Lewis's fault if the Narnia books got popular that they were pushed everywhere as mere children's books without a caveat that they were had a religious undercurrent. Maybe the real issue is that they are popular because that undercurrent pleases people, just as Praise of Empire pleased others, and those who take exception to that way of writing resent the popularity.

Well, if it's boring, it's boring. And it depends on what you mean by "didn't pretend"---as with Lewis, most of his readers were children. If you have no idea what you might be reading, you can't know whether it's pretense or not. Certainly Lewis wasn't responsible for whatever marketing got his books in my local library and into my hands. But I doubt they were and are popular because they are religious: rather, they probably are popular because they are accessible, imaginative (sometimes magical, as you said), action-packed, well-written, comforting (Aslan always appeared to set things right), and morally nonthreatening. Girls read them as much as boys did, and no parents objected to them. _______________________________________________

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:27 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF <dstockhoff at verizon.net>wrote: ------------------------------ From: Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 11:58 AM Subject: Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es) Ha, thanks everyone for engaging so profusely with my initial rant. I think all the angles have been well-covered. I'll just add that any of you who think Lewis and/or MacDonald have little literary merit and are reducible to dishonesty and/or didacticism, well... ---I think there's something about this forum that exaggerates what is said, and I'm just not careful enough to avoid a ballooning misunderstanding. I think Lewis and MacDonald are great, sometimes. And didacticism is not = dishonesty. There's nothing wrong with didacticism . . . unless it's dishonest, or pandering, or condescending, or poorly executed, or without life. In other words: murder is already illegal, we don't have to pass a special law against certain types of murders. And I am far from being the reader I was at 9. you can go suck an egg. And I wish you speedy recovery from your literary myopia. :) As to Lee's direct question: Just as a thought experiment, what would the reverse bring for you? What if there was, say, a deathbed confession by Wolfe that all his work was meant to subvert belief in Christ and promote worship of Satan or Dionysus. Would you be out? This did happen to me in the past few years with one of my favourite singers and lyricists, Nick Cave. First I just loved his musical and lyrical artistry - some of my all-time favourite stuff. Then I noticed his lyrics were consistently more and more 'God-conscious' and even specifically 'Christ-conscious'. Then he started professing to believe in God and in Christ (if in an idiosyncratic sense) - then his lyrics became even more blatantly 'Christian'. Then he suddenly said in several interviews on the back of his second novel coming out (The Death of Bunny Munro) that he did not believe in the literal existence of a personal God - contradicting quite clear statements in interviews in very recent years. Was I confused and even disappointed? Yeah. Have I abandoned enjoying, following and analysing his work? No way. Do I think the discussion is closed? Uh-uh. ---I have wondered about that, having noticed the change in lyrics and read statements that Cave is Catholic. But what's the contradiction arising from disbelieving in a "personal" God? (That term, especially in the form "personal Jesus," always makes me think of something portable and convenient, like a purse dog. Does the Church assign everyone a non-optional personal God, like Philip Pullman's daemons?) _______________________________________________

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Antonin Scriabin <kierkegaurdian at gmail.com>wrote: The Golden Key was a favorite of mine growing up. I wish I could find my copy! On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Daniel Petersen < danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's the BEST! You have no soul! You are not human, you are machine! (To be honest, it was on a second read that it blew me away.) -DOJP On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:11 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF <dstockhoff at verizon.net>wrote:

Golden Key: THAT's the one. Dull, dull, dull, dull, dull. ;) ------------------------------ From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 10:19 AM Subject: Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es) Try some of his short stories and novellas: Photogen and Nycteris (aka Day Boy & Night Girl, aka Son of the Day, Daughter of Night) Light Princess (aka Little Daylight) Golden Key Translations for Novalis Lewis and MacDonald never met. But Lewis credited MacDonald's fiction as an important element in his conversion. He (and the reception of his children) were important in the publication of Alice in Wonderland. Although he was a pastor for a time, his sermons and theology got him in trouble and he was eventually pushed out. J. On 3/16/2012 8:09 AM, David Stockhoff wrote: I'm not sure which of MacDonald's books I consider stilted and boring, although I encountered those as an adult. But I loved the Curdie books my mom read to me when I was four or five. On 3/15/2012 10:51 PM, Craig Brewer wrote: Phantastes was a beautiful book! Never besmirch the name of MacDonald! heh heh... As someone who was raised in a relatively a-religious family, I usually just ignored the obviously religious bits of Lewis/Tolkien/whoever else. But as I got older, I found that the non-"preachy" manner of fictional Christian works actually worked to explain why faith was interesting and attractive. After all, here was some fantasy that might be real on a certain level, or at least a number of people thought so. That's a perspective I've had trouble explaining to friends who had that "betrayal" reaction to Narnia. ------------------------------ From: David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net><dstockhoff at verizon.net>

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Daniel Petersen < danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote: I really enjoy the edition where it's printed as its own small book, with illustrations by Maurice Sendak and an afterword by W. H. Auden. (And I'll side with Auden over Stockhoff as to the story and its author's worth - but maybe the Stock finds Auden dull as well? [If so only further proving my theory that he is inhuman.]) You know, I actually first read that edition aloud to my daughter when she was 5 or 6 and that was the go that really bowled me over. David, do you know of any bairns you can read it aloud to? (Does anyone have experiences reading Wolfe aloud? I've never done that, I don't think. Lafferty gains whole new dimensions when you do it with him - I wonder what it would be like with Wolfe. I picture it being more of a reading to fellow adults scenario, rather than to children.) -DOJP On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Antonin Scriabin < kierkegaurdian at gmail.com> wrote:

The Golden Key was a favorite of mine growing up. I wish I could find my copy! On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Daniel Petersen < danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's the BEST! You have no soul! You are not human, you are machine! (To be honest, it was on a second read that it blew me away.) -DOJP On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:11 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF <dstockhoff at verizon.net wrote:

Golden Key: THAT's the one. Dull, dull, dull, dull, dull. ;) ------------------------------ From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 10:19 AM Subject: Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es) Try some of his short stories and novellas: Photogen and Nycteris (aka Day Boy & Night Girl, aka Son of the Day, Daughter of Night) Light Princess (aka Little Daylight) Golden Key Translations for Novalis Lewis and MacDonald never met. But Lewis credited MacDonald's fiction as an important element in his conversion. He (and the reception of his children) were important in the publication of Alice in Wonderland. Although he was a pastor for a time, his sermons and theology got him in trouble and he was eventually pushed out. J. On 3/16/2012 8:09 AM, David Stockhoff wrote: I'm not sure which of MacDonald's books I consider stilted and boring, although I encountered those as an adult. But I loved the Curdie books my mom read to me when I was four or five. On 3/15/2012 10:51 PM, Craig Brewer wrote: Phantastes was a beautiful book! Never besmirch the name of MacDonald! heh heh... As someone who was raised in a relatively a-religious family, I usually just ignored the obviously religious bits of Lewis/Tolkien/whoever else. But as I got older, I found that the non-"preachy" manner of fictional Christian works actually worked to explain why faith was interesting and attractive. After all, here was some fantasy that might be real on a certain level, or at least a number of people thought so. That's a perspective I've had trouble explaining to friends who had that "betrayal" reaction to Narnia. ------------------------------ From: David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net><dstockhoff at verizon.net>

The Golden Key was a favorite of mine growing up. I wish I could find my copy!

Antonin Scriabin wrote (16-03-2012 19:11): The Golden Key was a favorite of mine growing up. I wish I could find my copy!

I have here on my desk an unread copy of MacDonald's The Wise Woman atop* an unread copy of Moorcock's City of the Beast. They haven't as of yet set fire to each other. (*) I don't know how to say this. Atop seems wrong if there's only one thing under the things that is placed over it. ______________________________**_________________

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Antonin Scriabin <kierkegaurdian at gmail.com>wrote: Hhhmmm, the only book I have ever read out loud was *The Crying of Lot 49*by Pynchon. My copy of The Golden Key I remembering being blue, with gold-looking inlays for the title, etc., on the cover. It was very old and pretty. On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Daniel Petersen < danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:

I really enjoy the edition where it's printed as its own small book, with illustrations by Maurice Sendak and an afterword by W. H. Auden. (And I'll side with Auden over Stockhoff as to the story and its author's worth - but maybe the Stock finds Auden dull as well? [If so only further proving my theory that he is inhuman.]) You know, I actually first read that edition aloud to my daughter when she was 5 or 6 and that was the go that really bowled me over. David, do you know of any bairns you can read it aloud to? (Does anyone have experiences reading Wolfe aloud? I've never done that, I don't think. Lafferty gains whole new dimensions when you do it with him - I wonder what it would be like with Wolfe. I picture it being more of a reading to fellow adults scenario, rather than to children.) -DOJP On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Antonin Scriabin < kierkegaurdian at gmail.com> wrote:

The Golden Key was a favorite of mine growing up. I wish I could find my copy! On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Daniel Petersen < danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's the BEST! You have no soul! You are not human, you are machine! (To be honest, it was on a second read that it blew me away.) -DOJP On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:11 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF < dstockhoff at verizon.net> wrote:

Golden Key: THAT's the one. Dull, dull, dull, dull, dull. ;) ------------------------------ From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 10:19 AM Subject: Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es) Try some of his short stories and novellas: Photogen and Nycteris (aka Day Boy & Night Girl, aka Son of the Day, Daughter of Night) Light Princess (aka Little Daylight) Golden Key Translations for Novalis Lewis and MacDonald never met. But Lewis credited MacDonald's fiction as an important element in his conversion. He (and the reception of his children) were important in the publication of Alice in Wonderland. Although he was a pastor for a time, his sermons and theology got him in trouble and he was eventually pushed out. J. On 3/16/2012 8:09 AM, David Stockhoff wrote: I'm not sure which of MacDonald's books I consider stilted and boring, although I encountered those as an adult. But I loved the Curdie books my mom read to me when I was four or five. On 3/15/2012 10:51 PM, Craig Brewer wrote: Phantastes was a beautiful book! Never besmirch the name of MacDonald! heh heh... As someone who was raised in a relatively a-religious family, I usually just ignored the obviously religious bits of Lewis/Tolkien/whoever else. But as I got older, I found that the non-"preachy" manner of fictional Christian works actually worked to explain why faith was interesting and attractive. After all, here was some fantasy that might be real on a certain level, or at least a number of people thought so. That's a perspective I've had trouble explaining to friends who had that "betrayal" reaction to Narnia. ------------------------------ From: David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net><dstockhoff at verizon.net>

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ?It's the BEST! ?You have no soul! ?You are not human, you are machine!

(To be honest, it was on a second read that it blew me away.) -DOJP On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:11 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF <dstockhoff at verizon.net> wrote: Golden Key: THAT's the one. Dull, dull, dull, dull, dull.

;) ________________________________ From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 10:19 AM Subject: Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es) Try some of his short stories and novellas: Photogen and Nycteris (aka Day Boy & Night Girl, aka Son of the

Light Princess (aka Little Daylight) Golden Key Translations for Novalis Lewis and MacDonald never met. But Lewis credited MacDonald's fiction as an important element in his conversion. He (and the reception of his children) were important in the publication of Alice in Wonderland. Although he was a pastor for a time, his sermons and theology got him in trouble and he was eventually pushed out. J. On 3/16/2012 8:09 AM, David Stockhoff wrote: I'm not sure which of MacDonald's books I consider stilted and boring, although I encountered those as an adult. But I loved the Curdie books my mom read to me when I was four or five.

On 3/15/2012 10:51 PM, Craig Brewer wrote: Phantastes was a beautiful book! Never besmirch the name of MacDonald! heh heh...

As someone who was raised in a relatively a-religious family, I usually just ignored the obviously religious bits of Lewis/Tolkien/whoever else. But as I got older, I found that the non-"preachy" manner of fictional Christian works actually worked to explain why faith was interesting and attractive. After all, here was some fantasy that might be real on a certain level, or at least a number of people thought so. That's a perspective I've had trouble explaining to friends who had that "betrayal" reaction to Narnia. ________________________________ From: David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 9:42 PM Subject: Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es) On 3/15/2012 10:32 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:

Wasn't MacDonald a good half century older? And he was one of those mollified Presbyterians. But is it fair to criticise didacticism which didn't

Well, if it's boring, it's boring. And it depends on what you mean by "didn't pretend"---as with Lewis, most of his readers were children. If you have no idea what you might be reading, you can't know whether it's pretense or not. Certainly Lewis wasn't responsible for whatever marketing got his books in my local library and into my hands. But I doubt they were and are popular because they are religious: rather, they probably are popular because they are accessible, imaginative (sometimes magical, as you said), action-packed, well-written, comforting (Aslan always appeared to set things right), and morally nonthreatening. Girls read them as much as boys did, and no parents objected to them. _______________________________________________ Urth Mailing List To post, write urth at urth.net Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net _______________________________________________

_______________________________________________

_______________________________________________ Urth Mailing List To post, write urth at urth.net Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net _______________________________________________ Urth Mailing List To post, write urth at urth.net Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

_______________________________________________ Urth Mailing List To post, write urth at urth.net Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

_______________________________________________ Urth Mailing List To post, write urth at urth.net Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 4:32 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF <dstockhoff at verizon.net>wrote: I plan to read it to my daughter when she's old enough---in a year or two. That's why I collected all the MacDonald I have, though there was a selfish motivation as well. I have to apologize for shocking everyone, however. It wasn't The Golden Key I was thinking of at all. Had I read that as a child I might recall it more clearly than I did in fact---probably as much as Curdie---but I enjoyed it nevertheless. I am not sure which story it was that struck me as stilted and dull, only that the protagonist was a girl. But I shouldn't venture to opine until I get back home and find the physical books. Auden is amazing---no, not dull at all. But then he never wrote stories for children, or did he? ------------------------------ From: Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 3:30 PM Subject: Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es) I really enjoy the edition where it's printed as its own small book, with illustrations by Maurice Sendak and an afterword by W. H. Auden. (And I'll side with Auden over Stockhoff as to the story and its author's worth - but maybe the Stock finds Auden dull as well? [If so only further proving my theory that he is inhuman.]) You know, I actually first read that edition aloud to my daughter when she was 5 or 6 and that was the go that really bowled me over. David, do you know of any bairns you can read it aloud to? (Does anyone have experiences reading Wolfe aloud? I've never done that, I don't think. Lafferty gains whole new dimensions when you do it with him - I wonder what it would be like with Wolfe. I picture it being more of a reading to fellow adults scenario, rather than to children.) -DOJP On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Antonin Scriabin < kierkegaurdian at gmail.com> wrote: The Golden Key was a favorite of mine growing up. I wish I could find my copy! On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Daniel Petersen < danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's the BEST! You have no soul! You are not human, you are machine! (To be honest, it was on a second read that it blew me away.) -DOJP On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:11 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF <dstockhoff at verizon.net>wrote: Golden Key: THAT's the one. Dull, dull, dull, dull, dull. ;) ------------------------------ From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 10:19 AM Subject: Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es) Try some of his short stories and novellas: Photogen and Nycteris (aka Day Boy & Night Girl, aka Son of the Day, Daughter of Night) Light Princess (aka Little Daylight) Golden Key Translations for Novalis Lewis and MacDonald never met. But Lewis credited MacDonald's fiction as an important element in his conversion. He (and the reception of his children) were important in the publication of Alice in Wonderland. Although he was a pastor for a time, his sermons and theology got him in trouble and he was eventually pushed out. J. On 3/16/2012 8:09 AM, David Stockhoff wrote: I'm not sure which of MacDonald's books I consider stilted and boring, although I encountered those as an adult. But I loved the Curdie books my mom read to me when I was four or five. On 3/15/2012 10:51 PM, Craig Brewer wrote: Phantastes was a beautiful book! Never besmirch the name of MacDonald! heh heh... As someone who was raised in a relatively a-religious family, I usually just ignored the obviously religious bits of Lewis/Tolkien/whoever else. But as I got older, I found that the non-"preachy" manner of fictional Christian works actually worked to explain why faith was interesting and attractive. After all, here was some fantasy that might be real on a certain level, or at least a number of people thought so. That's a perspective I've had trouble explaining to friends who had that "betrayal" reaction to Narnia. ------------------------------ From: David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net> <dstockhoff at verizon.net>

On 3/16/2012 2:39 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote: (*) I don't know how to say this. Atop seems wrong if there's only one thing under the things that is placed over it.

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ?It's the BEST! ?You have no soul! ?You are not human, you are machine!

(To be honest, it was on a second read that it blew me away.) -DOJP On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:11 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF <dstockhoff at verizon.net> wrote: Golden Key: THAT's the one. Dull, dull, dull, dull, dull.

;) ________________________________ From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 10:19 AM Subject: Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es) Try some of his short stories and novellas: Photogen and Nycteris (aka Day Boy & Night Girl, aka Son of the

Light Princess (aka Little Daylight) Golden Key Translations for Novalis Lewis and MacDonald never met. But Lewis credited MacDonald's fiction as an important element in his conversion. He (and the reception of his children) were important in the publication of Alice in Wonderland. Although he was a pastor for a time, his sermons and theology got him in trouble and he was eventually pushed out. J. On 3/16/2012 8:09 AM, David Stockhoff wrote: I'm not sure which of MacDonald's books I consider stilted and boring, although I encountered those as an adult. But I loved the Curdie books my mom read to me when I was four or five.

On 3/15/2012 10:51 PM, Craig Brewer wrote: Phantastes was a beautiful book! Never besmirch the name of MacDonald! heh heh...

As someone who was raised in a relatively a-religious family, I usually just ignored the obviously religious bits of Lewis/Tolkien/whoever else. But as I got older, I found that the non-"preachy" manner of fictional Christian works actually worked to explain why faith was interesting and attractive. After all, here was some fantasy that might be real on a certain level, or at least a number of people thought so. That's a perspective I've had trouble explaining to friends who had that "betrayal" reaction to Narnia. ________________________________ From: David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 9:42 PM Subject: Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es) On 3/15/2012 10:32 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:

Wasn't MacDonald a good half century older? And he was one of those mollified Presbyterians. But is it fair to criticise didacticism which didn't

Well, if it's boring, it's boring. And it depends on what you mean by "didn't pretend"---as with Lewis, most of his readers were children. If you have no idea what you might be reading, you can't know whether it's pretense or not. Certainly Lewis wasn't responsible for whatever marketing got his books in my local library and into my hands. But I doubt they were and are popular because they are religious: rather, they probably are popular because they are accessible, imaginative (sometimes magical, as you said), action-packed, well-written, comforting (Aslan always appeared to set things right), and morally nonthreatening. Girls read them as much as boys did, and no parents objected to them. _______________________________________________ Urth Mailing List To post, write urth at urth.net Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net _______________________________________________

_______________________________________________

_______________________________________________ Urth Mailing List To post, write urth at urth.net Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net _______________________________________________ Urth Mailing List To post, write urth at urth.net Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

_______________________________________________ Urth Mailing List To post, write urth at urth.net Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

_______________________________________________ Urth Mailing List To post, write urth at urth.net Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

On 3/15/2012 1:16 PM, David Stockhoff wrote: On 3/15/2012 1:31 PM, James Wynn wrote:

On 3/15/2012 7:56 AM, Lee Berman wrote:

But, heresy aside, can such views be considered as leaning toward gnostic?

I don't think so. Not in themselves. Wolfe's off-hand proposition that the gods were "real" in some way but not deserving of worship would only be directly tied to conventional gnosticism if he double-down and stated that the gods were also the direct creators of the universe or the planet. Many Greek philosophers opined that their gods had been kings around whom cults had formed. Paul thought they were demons or fallen angels who paid no attention to the sacrifices offered to their images. Lewis seems to have toyed with the idea that they were created powerful beings who, again, were unworthy of worship. Wolfe's comment demonstrates that he is a mythopoetist--that he believes the myths carry significant truths --spiritual truths-- just as electronic protocols carry data. For more understanding of what he believes about mythology, study Green's conversation with his psychiatrist in There Are Doors.

Interestingly, it has been proposed here that the Yesodis may have created their own whatever-it-is they live in or on. Does that count as world-creation?

On 3/15/2012 1:36 PM, David Stockhoff wrote: On 3/15/2012 2:13 PM, Jeff Wilson wrote:

On 3/15/2012 9:39 AM, David Stockhoff wrote:

The next is that the story can be interpreted as a kind of satire, even a comedy. What could be more arrogant than rebuilding or summoning Christ? And yet what Christian would not desire, at some level, for that to happen? (Perhaps not a modern one, but certainly a medieval one.)

This is not the least common take on things, with people misguidedly seeking to possess or coerce their divine benefactor rather than follow his example. It is repeated in UOTNS with Apu Punchau, in the Ray Bradbury story, "The Man", the Terence Stamp/Udo Kier film, Revelation, and even the comic G vs E series had the agents trying to earn enough points to win a personal meeting with JC Himself.

And quarterbacks demanding a victory for their team.

Has Tebow disclosed that's what he's praying for, rather than the usual, "Please don't let me screw up" and freedom from injury prayers most athletes offer up?

On 3/15/2012 1:36 PM, David Stockhoff wrote: On 3/15/2012 2:13 PM, Jeff Wilson wrote:

On 3/15/2012 9:39 AM, David Stockhoff wrote:

The next is that the story can be interpreted as a kind of satire, even a comedy. What could be more arrogant than rebuilding or summoning Christ? And yet what Christian would not desire, at some level, for that to happen? (Perhaps not a modern one, but certainly a medieval one.)

This is not the least common take on things, with people misguidedly seeking to possess or coerce their divine benefactor rather than follow his example. It is repeated in UOTNS with Apu Punchau, in the Ray Bradbury story, "The Man", the Terence Stamp/Udo Kier film, Revelation, and even the comic G vs E series had the agents trying to earn enough points to win a personal meeting with JC Himself.

And quarterbacks demanding a victory for their team.

On 3/16/2012 4:52 PM, Jeff Wilson wrote: On 3/15/2012 1:36 PM, David Stockhoff wrote:

On 3/15/2012 2:13 PM, Jeff Wilson wrote:

On 3/15/2012 9:39 AM, David Stockhoff wrote:

The next is that the story can be interpreted as a kind of satire, even a comedy. What could be more arrogant than rebuilding or summoning Christ? And yet what Christian would not desire, at some level, for that to happen? (Perhaps not a modern one, but certainly a medieval one.)

This is not the least common take on things, with people misguidedly seeking to possess or coerce their divine benefactor rather than follow his example. It is repeated in UOTNS with Apu Punchau, in the Ray Bradbury story, "The Man", the Terence Stamp/Udo Kier film, Revelation, and even the comic G vs E series had the agents trying to earn enough points to win a personal meeting with JC Himself.

And quarterbacks demanding a victory for their team.

Has Tebow disclosed that's what he's praying for, rather than the usual, "Please don't let me screw up" and freedom from injury prayers most athletes offer up?

On 3/16/2012 4:32 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote: I plan to read it to my daughter when she's old enough---in a year or two. That's why I collected all the MacDonald I have, though there was a selfish motivation as well. I have to apologize for shocking everyone, however. It wasn't The Golden Key I was thinking of at all. Had I read that as a child I might recall it more clearly than I did in fact---probably as much as Curdie---but I enjoyed it nevertheless. I am not sure which story it was that struck me as stilted and dull, only that the protagonist was a girl. But I shouldn't venture to opine until I get back home and find the physical books. Auden is amazing---no, not dull at all. But then he never wrote stories for children, or did he? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 3:30 PM Subject: Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es) I really enjoy the edition where it's printed as its own small book, with illustrations by Maurice Sendak and an afterword by W. H. Auden. (And I'll side with Auden over Stockhoff as to the story and its author's worth - but maybe the Stock finds Auden dull as well? [If so only further proving my theory that he is inhuman.]) You know, I actually first read that edition aloud to my daughter when she was 5 or 6 and that was the go that really bowled me over. David, do you know of any bairns you can read it aloud to? (Does anyone have experiences reading Wolfe aloud? I've never done that, I don't think. Lafferty gains whole new dimensions when you do it with him - I wonder what it would be like with Wolfe. I picture it being more of a reading to fellow adults scenario, rather than to children.) -DOJP On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Antonin Scriabin <kierkegaurdian at gmail.com <mailto:kierkegaurdian at gmail.com>> wrote: The Golden Key was a favorite of mine growing up. I wish I could find my copy! On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com <mailto:danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com>> wrote: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's the BEST! You have no soul! You are not human, you are machine! (To be honest, it was on a second read that it blew me away.) -DOJP On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:11 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF <dstockhoff at verizon.net <mailto:dstockhoff at verizon.net>> wrote: Golden Key: THAT's the one. Dull, dull, dull, dull, dull. ;) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com <mailto:crushtv at gmail.com>> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net <mailto:urth at lists.urth.net>> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 10:19 AM Subject: Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es) Try some of his short stories and novellas: Photogen and Nycteris (aka Day Boy & Night Girl, aka Son of the Day, Daughter of Night) Light Princess (aka Little Daylight) Golden Key Translations for Novalis Lewis and MacDonald never met. But Lewis credited MacDonald's fiction as an important element in his conversion. He (and the reception of his children) were important in the publication of Alice in Wonderland. Although he was a pastor for a time, his sermons and theology got him in trouble and he was eventually pushed out. J. On 3/16/2012 8:09 AM, David Stockhoff wrote:

I'm not sure which of MacDonald's books I consider stilted and boring, although I encountered those as an adult. But I loved the Curdie books my mom read to me when I was four or five. On 3/15/2012 10:51 PM, Craig Brewer wrote:

Phantastes was a beautiful book! Never besmirch the name of MacDonald! heh heh... As someone who was raised in a relatively a-religious family, I usually just ignored the obviously religious bits of Lewis/Tolkien/whoever else. But as I got older, I found that the non-"preachy" manner of fictional Christian works actually worked to explain why faith was interesting and attractive. After all, here was some fantasy that might be real on a certain level, or at least a number of people thought so. That's a perspective I've had trouble explaining to friends who had that "betrayal" reaction to Narnia. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net> <mailto:dstockhoff at verizon.net>

On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 4:08 AM, David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net>wrote: Just for the record, I can't find the "dull" MacDonald story I thought I was looking for, and I can only guess it's buried among the many ebook collections of his fiction on my old hard drive. But *Lilith *certainly fits the bill, and *Phantastes *is not far behind. No worse than William Morris, though. *Photgen and Nycteris *is one of my favorites, along with several others I can't locate at the moment. On 3/16/2012 4:32 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote: I plan to read it to my daughter when she's old enough---in a year or two. That's why I collected all the MacDonald I have, though there was a selfish motivation as well. I have to apologize for shocking everyone, however. It wasn't The Golden Key I was thinking of at all. Had I read that as a child I might recall it more clearly than I did in fact---probably as much as Curdie---but I enjoyed it nevertheless. I am not sure which story it was that struck me as stilted and dull, only that the protagonist was a girl. But I shouldn't venture to opine until I get back home and find the physical books. Auden is amazing---no, not dull at all. But then he never wrote stories for children, or did he? ------------------------------ From: Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com><danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> <urth at lists.urth.net> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 3:30 PM Subject: Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es) I really enjoy the edition where it's printed as its own small book, with illustrations by Maurice Sendak and an afterword by W. H. Auden. (And I'll side with Auden over Stockhoff as to the story and its author's worth - but maybe the Stock finds Auden dull as well? [If so only further proving my theory that he is inhuman.]) You know, I actually first read that edition aloud to my daughter when she was 5 or 6 and that was the go that really bowled me over. David, do you know of any bairns you can read it aloud to? (Does anyone have experiences reading Wolfe aloud? I've never done that, I don't think. Lafferty gains whole new dimensions when you do it with him - I wonder what it would be like with Wolfe. I picture it being more of a reading to fellow adults scenario, rather than to children.) -DOJP On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Antonin Scriabin < kierkegaurdian at gmail.com> wrote: The Golden Key was a favorite of mine growing up. I wish I could find my copy! On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Daniel Petersen < danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's the BEST! You have no soul! You are not human, you are machine! (To be honest, it was on a second read that it blew me away.) -DOJP On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:11 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF <dstockhoff at verizon.net>wrote: Golden Key: THAT's the one. Dull, dull, dull, dull, dull. ;) ------------------------------ From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 10:19 AM Subject: Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es) Try some of his short stories and novellas: Photogen and Nycteris (aka Day Boy & Night Girl, aka Son of the Day, Daughter of Night) Light Princess (aka Little Daylight) Golden Key Translations for Novalis Lewis and MacDonald never met. But Lewis credited MacDonald's fiction as an important element in his conversion. He (and the reception of his children) were important in the publication of Alice in Wonderland. Although he was a pastor for a time, his sermons and theology got him in trouble and he was eventually pushed out. J. On 3/16/2012 8:09 AM, David Stockhoff wrote: I'm not sure which of MacDonald's books I consider stilted and boring, although I encountered those as an adult. But I loved the Curdie books my mom read to me when I was four or five. On 3/15/2012 10:51 PM, Craig Brewer wrote: Phantastes was a beautiful book! Never besmirch the name of MacDonald! heh heh... As someone who was raised in a relatively a-religious family, I usually just ignored the obviously religious bits of Lewis/Tolkien/whoever else. But as I got older, I found that the non-"preachy" manner of fictional Christian works actually worked to explain why faith was interesting and attractive. After all, here was some fantasy that might be real on a certain level, or at least a number of people thought so. That's a perspective I've had trouble explaining to friends who had that "betrayal" reaction to Narnia. ------------------------------ From: David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net> <dstockhoff at verizon.net>

On 3/17/2012 6:06 AM, Daniel Petersen wrote: Photogen and Nycteris is definitely one of the very best. Lilith and Phantastes are certainly meandering and oblique novels - but I think they're very powerful, undiluted fantasies - he taps into some deep mythopoiea and faerie in these in my opinion - lots of great individual scenes and elements too - plenty of creatures and not a little horror also - he's always struck me as a phantasmagorical Poe. I'd like to see whether their's a connection to Wolfe at all, either overtly or unintentionally. -DOJP On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 4:08 AM, David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net <mailto:dstockhoff at verizon.net>> wrote: Just for the record, I can't find the "dull" MacDonald story I thought I was looking for, and I can only guess it's buried among the many ebook collections of his fiction on my old hard drive. But /Lilith /certainly fits the bill, and /Phantastes /is not far behind. No worse than William Morris, though. /Photgen and Nycteris /is one of my favorites, along with several others I can't locate at the moment. On 3/16/2012 4:32 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote:

I plan to read it to my daughter when she's old enough---in a year or two. That's why I collected all the MacDonald I have, though there was a selfish motivation as well. I have to apologize for shocking everyone, however. It wasn't The Golden Key I was thinking of at all. Had I read that as a child I might recall it more clearly than I did in fact---probably as much as Curdie---but I enjoyed it nevertheless. I am not sure which story it was that struck me as stilted and dull, only that the protagonist was a girl. But I shouldn't venture to opine until I get back home and find the physical books. Auden is amazing---no, not dull at all. But then he never wrote stories for children, or did he? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> <mailto:danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> <mailto:urth at lists.urth.net> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 3:30 PM Subject: Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es) I really enjoy the edition where it's printed as its own small book, with illustrations by Maurice Sendak and an afterword by W. H. Auden. (And I'll side with Auden over Stockhoff as to the story and its author's worth - but maybe the Stock finds Auden dull as well? [If so only further proving my theory that he is inhuman.]) You know, I actually first read that edition aloud to my daughter when she was 5 or 6 and that was the go that really bowled me over. David, do you know of any bairns you can read it aloud to? (Does anyone have experiences reading Wolfe aloud? I've never done that, I don't think. Lafferty gains whole new dimensions when you do it with him - I wonder what it would be like with Wolfe. I picture it being more of a reading to fellow adults scenario, rather than to children.) -DOJP On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Antonin Scriabin <kierkegaurdian at gmail.com <mailto:kierkegaurdian at gmail.com>> wrote: The Golden Key was a favorite of mine growing up. I wish I could find my copy! On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com <mailto:danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com>> wrote: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's the BEST! You have no soul! You are not human, you are machine! (To be honest, it was on a second read that it blew me away.) -DOJP On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:11 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF <dstockhoff at verizon.net <mailto:dstockhoff at verizon.net>> wrote: Golden Key: THAT's the one. Dull, dull, dull, dull, dull. ;) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com <mailto:crushtv at gmail.com>> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net <mailto:urth at lists.urth.net>> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 10:19 AM Subject: Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es) Try some of his short stories and novellas: Photogen and Nycteris (aka Day Boy & Night Girl, aka Son of the Day, Daughter of Night) Light Princess (aka Little Daylight) Golden Key Translations for Novalis Lewis and MacDonald never met. But Lewis credited MacDonald's fiction as an important element in his conversion. He (and the reception of his children) were important in the publication of Alice in Wonderland. Although he was a pastor for a time, his sermons and theology got him in trouble and he was eventually pushed out. J. On 3/16/2012 8:09 AM, David Stockhoff wrote:

I'm not sure which of MacDonald's books I consider stilted and boring, although I encountered those as an adult. But I loved the Curdie books my mom read to me when I was four or five. On 3/15/2012 10:51 PM, Craig Brewer wrote:

Phantastes was a beautiful book! Never besmirch the name of MacDonald! heh heh... As someone who was raised in a relatively a-religious family, I usually just ignored the obviously religious bits of Lewis/Tolkien/whoever else. But as I got older, I found that the non-"preachy" manner of fictional Christian works actually worked to explain why faith was interesting and attractive. After all, here was some fantasy that might be real on a certain level, or at least a number of people thought so. That's a perspective I've had trouble explaining to friends who had that "betrayal" reaction to Narnia. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net> <mailto:dstockhoff at verizon.net>