{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/6176", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 6176, "subject": "Lupiverse(es)", "messages": 117, "voices": 12, "first": "2012-03-12T19:54:49+00:00", "last": "2012-03-17T15:53:03+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-12T19:54:49+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn: You are ignore the actual context of the references. Urth, Verthandi and Skuld " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "are all planets of the same solar system in the same cycle, and the reasons they are given " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "the names Past, Present and Future are explained." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \n\nI am quite aware of the superficial context of the references. You ignore that the text can be\n\nunderstood at more than one literary level. I don't think there is a particularly good explanation \n\nfor the names of all three planets. But I think you missed a clue there which hints at a connection \n\nto earth. An ancient language is mentioned in which the words for gift and now are homophones. This \n\nlanguage is surely english. The chances of it being another language are slim and pointless." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Jeff Wilson: Urth is certainly the repository of things and personages past, and the \nname is appropriate, but that doesn't make it literally in our past." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \n\nNo, what makes it our past is that Gene WOlfe said it was our past. I certainly had thought it was\n\nthe future until I encountered the James Jordan interview (and one other, I believe). I don't think \n\nthe possibility was much discussed in here until I brought the topic up 5-6 years ago.\n\n \n\nOnly after that clue from the interviews did I start looking for evidence that Urth was in a previous\n\nuniverse than earth's. But once I went looking, I found some. Others look for evidence that Urth is \n\nearth's future and that can be found also.\n\n \n\nSo, two competing hypothesis with a significant number of followers in each camp. Take your pick.\n\nThey are both valid, based on the support they receive. The \"Urth is earth's future\" camp has the \n\nunpleasant requirement of assuming that Wolfe was lying, retrofitting, forgetful or otherwise less \n\nthan accurate in the interviews. Or perhaps two different interviewers managed to quote him \n\nincorrectly in the same way on this point. But for some people, these problems are outweighed by \n\nproblems with the other hyphothesis. C'est la vie. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-12T20:05:07+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Lee Berman wrote:\nThey are both valid, based on the support they receive. The \"Urth is earth's future\"\ncamp has the unpleasant requirement of assuming that Wolfe was lying, retrofitting,\nforgetful or otherwise less than accurate in the interviews. Or perhaps two different\ninterviewers managed to quote him incorrectly in the same way ..." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Exactly. Wolfe is a tricksy writer and a less-than-forthcoming\ninterviewee at times, but I refuse to believe that he outright lies.\nUrth is not our future." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "<09E73CDA688D4D638A4CF1615384FFCD@Rover>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2012-03-12T20:33:42+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Lee Berman \n\n\n\nGerry Quinn: " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "You are ignore the actual context of the references. Urth, Verthandi and Skuld \nare all planets of the same solar system in the same cycle, and the reasons they are given \nthe names Past, Present and Future are explained." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I am quite aware of the superficial context of the references. You ignore that the text can be\nunderstood at more than one literary level. I don't think there is a particularly good explanation \nfor the names of all three planets. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It’s reasonable. Earth was considered — at least by those colonising Mars - the past of humanity, Mars the present, hence its new name. Then those interested in colonising Venus decided to go one up on both.\n\nOne thing is certain: you don’t need to do “further readings and research”. The meanings of past, present and future are explicitly noted, with no references to Norns needed. Wolfe doesn’t generally hide cryptic clues like this. He did assume that many or most readers would know that Mars (“which was then called War”) derives from the name of the Roman god of war — but he also noted that it was red just in case anyone needed an extra clue." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But I think you missed a clue there which hints at a connection \nto earth. An ancient language is mentioned in which the words for gift and now are homophones. This \nlanguage is surely english. The chances of it being another language are slim and pointless." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "What makes you think I missed something so completely obvious? \n\n\nIf Urth is a reference to a past universe, Verthandi and Skuld are the Mars and Venus of that universe. Every iteration has an Urth, a Verthandi and a Skuld. So their names say nothing about which iteration they are in.\n\n- Gerry Quinn\n\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F5E6EE3.2030104@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-12T21:47:15+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<09E73CDA688D4D638A4CF1615384FFCD@Rover>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn wrote:\n*From:* Lee Berman \nBut I think you missed a clue there which hints at a connection to\nearth. An ancient language is mentioned in which the words for gift\nand now are homophones. This language is surely english. The\nchances of it being another language are slim and pointless.\n\nWhat makes you think I missed something so completely obvious?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't know what the two of you are discussing, but the portuguese\nwords for gift and now are the same. I'd be surprised if it was only\nenglish and portuguese. Praesens means 'being in front of'." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4A9762EAA74B418C83FC434B9E5FA68A@Rover>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2012-03-13T00:09:41+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F5E6EE3.2030104@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Ant?nio Marques " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn wrote:\n*From:* Lee Berman \nBut I think you missed a clue there which hints at a connection to\nearth. An ancient language is mentioned in which the words for gift\nand now are homophones. This language is surely english. The\nchances of it being another language are slim and pointless." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "What makes you think I missed something so completely obvious?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I don't know what the two of you are discussing, but the portuguese\nwords for gift and now are the same. I'd be surprised if it was only\nenglish and portuguese. Praesens means 'being in front of'." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Now you mention it, I think I recall you reminding us of it before!\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F5E9D9D.4090107@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-13T01:06:37+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4A9762EAA74B418C83FC434B9E5FA68A@Rover>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Gerry Quinn wrote (13-03-2012 00:09):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "*From:* Ant?nio Marques \nGerry Quinn wrote:\n > *From:* Lee Berman \n > >> But I think you missed a clue there which hints at a connection to\n > >> earth. An ancient language is mentioned in which the words for gift\n > >> and now are homophones. This language is surely english. The\n > >> chances of it being another language are slim and pointless.\n >\n > > What makes you think I missed something so completely obvious?\n\n > I don't know what the two of you are discussing, but the portuguese\n > words for gift and now are the same. I'd be surprised if it was only\n > english and portuguese. Praesens means 'being in front of'.\nNow you mention it, I think I recall you reminding us of it before!" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I should clarify 'praesens' is latin. Portuguese has:\n\n- presente 'present', agora 'now', presentemente 'currently'\n- presente 'gift', prenda 'gift', presentear 'to gift', d?diva 'solemn \ngift', dom 'godly gift'\n\nand surely others I'm not thinking of right now.\n\nIn romance,\n- 'present' (praesens 'being in front of') is a present participle\n- 'past' (passatus 'passed') is a past participle\n- 'future' (futurus 'going to be') is a future participle" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F5EA519.20303@clueland.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at clueland.com" }, "date": "2012-03-13T01:38:33+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F5E9D9D.4090107@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/12/2012 8:06 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:\nIn romance,\n- 'present' (praesens 'being in front of') is a present participle\n- 'past' (passatus 'passed') is a past participle\n- 'future' (futurus 'going to be') is a future participle" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The ancient Greeks (among others) saw themselves as metaphorically \nlooking backward in time as they moved toward the unseen future, or \nperhaps standing in a river forever looking downstream. As Antonio \nnotes, their cultural inheritors, the Romans, spoke of the current \nmoment, or year, or hour, as praesens, being in front of the rest. Thus \n\"the present hour\" has come to be known as \"the present\" in English, but \nthe Roman's cultural inheritors, the Hispanics, diverged in their \nemphasis on the subject noun instead of the adjective, \"agora\" or \n\"ahora\", \"this hour\". So I think English is more likely the forgotten \ntongue, while Spanish and Portuguese are more likely to be the not-quite \nforgotten tongues connected to the inscriptions Valeria reads in the \nAtrium of Time." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at clueland.com\nComputational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana\n< http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-13T02:18:35+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F5EA519.20303@clueland.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Antonio Pedro Marques: I don't know what the two of you are discussing, " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "but the portuguese words for gift and now are the same." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \n\nThanks Antonio. I have noticed your linguistic knowledgeablity before and\n\nI always appreciate your help in this area. Maybe if I amend my statement\n\nfrom \"english\" to Indo-European languages it would become true. I dunno.\n\nBut I still think it probably refers to earth languages and is thus a bit \n\nof evidence against the theory I lean toward." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Andrew Mason: I think he [Dionysus]must be significant somehow. It's partly " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "through him, I think, that the Rajan becomes aware of the way in which gods " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "can be forms of the Outsider;...so he must have been added to the story\nfor some reason. I totally agree that the passage isn't telling us who\nthe Outsider really is - that's been established by lots of references\n- if anything, it's telling us who Dionysus really is. But Wolfe seems\nto attach importance to it for some reason. Perhaps because his\nconnection with wine makes him a prefiguring of Christ?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \n\nThis is along the lines of my own view. And while wine (and vines ;-)) are\n\na part of it, there might be an even more important part:\n\n \n\nDionysus was an ancient rustic god of the Greeks and so could be said to be\n\na father or grandfather of Zeus. Then later he ends up as the son of Zeus.\n\nLater still, belief in the Greek Pantheon fades away but Dionysus (and his\n\nephithets) worship carries on and with him more as a spirit presence than his \n\nprevious androgenous incarnation. \n\n \n\nThus Dionysus represents a pre-christian example of a father-son-spirit trinity. \n\nAnd yes there is a good chance this was part of the importance wine plays in \n\nChristianity. The Mediterranean religions were always borrowing concepts from \n\ntheir neighbors and passing them on to future generations.\n\n \n\nIn Long/Short Sun, I see the paternal-filial confusion of Zeus-Dionysus played \n\nout with Silk and Pas with the spiritual side of Dionysus being played by the \n\nOutsider. The use of a Dionysian reference says to me that like Dionysus (and \n\nThe Cumaean Sybil) this is a herald to a future Christianity and Trinity to \n\ncome, rather than some remnant echo of a previous Christ.\n\n \n\nMy own thoughts had been that Urth's (and Briah's) Christ would come in its \n\nown future. But I must admit I find Dan'l hypothesis to be compelling: that \n\nearth's Christ transcends universal time and echoes back to Briah and Urth and \n\nBlue etc. \n\n \n\nBut to be ready for Christ, a world must pass through certain stages, one of \n\nthem being a Flood. Thus I see Blue and Ushas as prepared for the coming of \n\nChrist but not Urth nor Green yet. This is how I see the solution to Marc's \n\n\"Green is Urth\" mystery. (though I know he sees it differently). \n\n \n\nurth and Green and antediluvian earth are/were so overrun with superhuman \n\nmonsters (Bible-nephilim and demons. etc/) that humanity really didn't stand a \n\nchance of resisting.\n\n \n\nThere are demons to be found on Ushas, Blue and our post-Flood earth but, through \n\nGod's intervention on our behalf, they are now manageable problems. Thus, we \n\nbecame ready for Christ and so are Blue and Ushas.\n\n \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-14T12:37:51+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Jeff Wilson: Earth has had several 8 figure atrocities in the last \n150 years, and the extinction of the human race is still do-able." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nYes, but Earth's population is in the 10 figures. Anthropological\nestimates suggest pre-civilized humanity died at a rate of up to\n25% from warfare/violence. Accuse me of optimism if you like but I\nthink getting it below 1% is a great accomplishment. This is arguably\nthe mose peaceful time in human history." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Humanity is scattered beyond the ability of Urthlings to wipe them out, \nand there may not even be 8 figures of Urthlings left." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \n\"Scattered across 10,000 worlds..\" right? Still I wonder. We don't seem\nto encounter any of these humans from worlds other than Urth (maybe\nTyphon?). Or if we do, they are evolved to the point that we may have \ndifficulty calling them human, like Typhon, apports, B and F, Father \nInire and the Cumaean, Neighbors and Inhumi.\n \nAnyway, all a moot point. The morality displayed by Wolfe's Increate (put\ninto action by his demiurgical servant Tzadkiel) suggests that genocide is\nnot necessarily a bad thing, if done for the right reasons. Same for the OT\nGod, of course.\n \nIt would seem there are far worse actions than mass slaughter of humanity.\nThe funny thing is that in both the OT and in BotNS, it is difficult to pin\ndown exactly what was so wicked about ante-diluvian earth and Urth.\n \nWas it idol worship? Human sacrifice? Witchcraft? Mating with demons and producing \nmonstrous offspring? Pedophilia, incest and other sexual deviance? All these are \nhinted at in the OT and BotNS but no clear reason is given for the need to wipe out \n99% of humanity on a planet. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F60A180.8040706@clueland.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at clueland.com" }, "date": "2012-03-14T13:47:44+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/14/2012 7:37 AM, Lee Berman wrote:\nAnyway, all a moot point. The morality displayed by Wolfe's Increate (put\ninto action by his demiurgical servant Tzadkiel) suggests that genocide is\nnot necessarily a bad thing, if done for the right reasons. Same for the OT\nGod, of course." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm not talking about grimly necessary custodial genocide on the part of \nimpartial higher beings with the ability to see the true alternatives to \ntheir actions, or the natural struggle for limited resources that is \ncommon to most living things, I mean atrocities, the gratuitous \nslaughter, mortification, rape, and other heinous cruelties human beings \nvisit on each other for their own peace of mind, or entertainment, or \nsense of entitlement, or any of the other beknighted steps of Maslow's \npyramid." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Yes, but Earth's population is in the 10 figures. Anthropological\nestimates suggest pre-civilized humanity died at a rate of up to\n25% from warfare/violence. Accuse me of optimism if you like but I\nthink getting it below 1% is a great accomplishment. This is arguably\nthe mose peaceful time in human history." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Just lately things have improved, but Mao, Stalin, and the Kims' great \naccomplishments were the assembly of totalitarian regimes where, for \nseveral examples, tens of millions were peacefully starved to death \nwithout bullet holes, because there was simply no use resisting or \naccess to people with food to fight over. I don't consider that an \nimprovement over the old fire and sword method." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Was it idol worship? Human sacrifice? Witchcraft? Mating with demons and producing\nmonstrous offspring? Pedophilia, incest and other sexual deviance? All these are\nhinted at in the OT and BotNS but no clear reason is given for the need to wipe out\n99% of humanity on a planet. \t\t \t \t\t" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "In the OT, the clear reason is to rid the world/the Israelites of \npracticers of bad habits, so that the new generations may continue \nunburdened by them. Going into particular detail on what the bad habits \nwere was seen as helping perpetuate them. The Yesodis have some of that, \nbut they also have the additional reason that the entire exhausted \nsurface of Urth needs to be turned over, and they also improve on the OT \nmethod by displacing as much of the population as they practically can \nbefore flooding out the remnant, so they probably kill of 99% of what's \nleft, which might only be 10% of what they started with." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at clueland.com\nComputational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana\n< http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-14T14:41:36+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F60A180.8040706@clueland.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Jeff Wilson: I'm not talking about grimly necessary custodial genocide on \nthe part of impartial higher beings with the ability to see the true \nalternatives to their actions, or the natural struggle for limited resources \nthat is common to most living things, I mean atrocities, the gratuitous \nslaughter, mortification, rape, and other heinous cruelties human beings \nvisit on each other for their own peace of mind, or entertainment, or \nsense of entitlement, or any of the other beknighted steps of Maslow's \npyramid." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nI still think people are significantly kinder and more peaceful across the\nworld now than they were 5000 years ago.\n \nMoreover Jeff, I think your expressed outrage is an example of this. If it\nwere 5000 years ago and you became aware of a famine in China or N. Korea\nyou wouldn't attribute it to cruelty and man's inhumanity to man. You'd\nattribute the famine to your God and worship His power and ability to smite \nyour enemies. You'd write a Holy Book about it.\n \nMost people just don't glory in the same things they gloried in their God\n5000 years ago. It seems like a good thing to me, though I know some will\ndisagree." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Duck season!" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nWabbit season! Heh. Though it might be unfair to non-Americans to reference \nthe classic Bugs Bunny/Daffy Duck argument on which hunting season it is. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<1331737802.36157.YahooMailNeo@web121001.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2012-03-14T15:10:02+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "A few things:\n\n\n1) 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. Not very \"nice\" a way to do it, but still...\n\n2) Renewing the sun isn't a spiritual salvation like Christ's sacrifice. Allegorically, sure. But I think it's important to be careful where we're talking allegory and where we're talking plot. They won't always match up. In the *plot*, \"God\"/The Outsider doesn't bring the new sun, the Hieros do. Sure, they may be agents of the Outsider, operating in his spirit, etc. But the allegorical \"salvation\" and the plot \"salvation\" aren't the same thing and won't look the same. So of course it looks bad for \"God\" to perform genocide (the Old Testament notwithstanding), but New Sun doesn't operate on the same narrative terms as the OT: God is not a direct actor in the story in the same way that he is in the Bible.\n\n3) \"Salvation\" can look different on those two levels. Obviously, life just keeps going on Ushas, although in a different (and hopefully better) form. But it isn't a heaven where all is well and good. It may be a kind of evolution, but even if it's an allegory of salvation, the plot won't exactly play out as if everybody now lives in heaven.f\n\nI'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? I mean, the story of Severian is certainly closer to the gospel than Typhon's story, say. So it's like steps toward salvation where the central \"true\" story gradually becomes more and better understood/told/remembered/lived. Even if his Catholicism is as strict as you can imagine, I don't see any reason to think that he had to write a story that was completely and totally consistent with or even a retelling of orthodoxy or scripture. I forget who it was that brought up Tolkien's notion of \"sub creation\" (Dan'l?). And even there, authors have plenty of room to borrow themes and then\n move away from them: Gandalf's resurrection, say. A \"Christ-like\" moment? Absolutely. But is Middle Earth \"saved\" after that? Not at all. It mirrors that event and draws a lot of significance from its allegorical meaning, but the plot doesn't therefore have to follow the same rules or even move to the same conclusions.\n\nAnd now I'm repeating myself, so I'll stop.\n\n\n\n________________________________" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " From: Lee Berman \nTo: urth at urth.net \nSent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 9:41 AM\nSubject: (urth) Lupiverse(es)\nJeff Wilson: I'm not talking about grimly necessary custodial genocide on \nthe part of impartial higher beings with the ability to see the true \nalternatives to their actions, or the natural struggle for limited resources \nthat is common to most living things, I mean atrocities, the gratuitous \nslaughter, mortification, rape, and other heinous cruelties human beings \nvisit on each other for their own peace of mind, or entertainment, or \nsense of entitlement, or any of the other beknighted steps of Maslow's \npyramid." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I still think people are significantly kinder and more peaceful across the\nworld now than they were 5000 years ago.\n\nMoreover Jeff, I think your expressed outrage is an example of this. If it\nwere 5000 years ago and you became aware of a famine in China or N. Korea\nyou wouldn't attribute it to cruelty and man's inhumanity to man. You'd\nattribute the famine to your God and worship His power and ability to smite \nyour enemies. You'd write a Holy Book about it.\n\nMost people just don't glory in the same things they gloried in their God\n5000 years ago. It seems like a good thing to me, though I know some will\ndisagree." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Duck season!" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Wabbit season! Heh. Though it might be unfair to non-Americans to reference \nthe classic Bugs Bunny/Daffy Duck argument on which hunting season it is. ??? ??? ??? ? ??? ??? ? " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F60B88A.8060802@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-14T15:26:02+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<1331737802.36157.YahooMailNeo@web121001.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Craig Brewer wrote (14-03-2012 15:10):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And now I'm repeating myself, so I'll stop." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Watch the sarcasm..." } ] }, { "message_id": "<1331740612.32969.YahooMailNeo@web84105.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "DAVID STOCKHOFF", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2012-03-14T15:56:52+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "________________________________\n From: Lee Berman \nTo: urth at urth.net \nSent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 8:37 AM\nSubject: (urth) Lupiverse(es)\n \n... Anthropological estimates suggest pre-civilized humanity died at a rate of up to 25% \nfrom warfare/violence. Accuse me of optimism if you like but I think getting it below \n1% is a great accomplishment. This is arguably the mose peaceful time in human history.\n\nI'm skeptical of this estimate, since it is based on traditional scholarly assumptions of inherent structural violence that inevitably inflate the degree of violence in so-called \"traditional\" societies. Modern \"civilized\" humans tend to think of the \"uncivilized\" as violent because they get all pissy when we take away their land and their way of life and then try to kill them. Premodern civilized humans like the Greeks had to deal with nomadic tribes whose societies were utterly different from those of traditional societies but not all that different from the Greeks themselves. They had horses, for one thing, allowing them to form larger political units based on slavery. They had kings.\n\nWe have little choice but to base our assumptions about lost societies on what we know of existing \"primitive\" ones. Since we have almost zero information about precivilized---or, more precisely, \"pre-civilization\"---societies, we can choose whether to assume they were more like the Mongols or more like the Khoisan, but we can be wrong. I'll offer a few data points:\n\n(1) Outwardly violent tribes living in isolation in New Guinea and the Amazon tend to be all show, from everything I've read. Very rarely do people get hurt; certainly they don't get their villages burned and their women and children slaughtered like in South Sudan. Violence is highly stylized among these tribes. Even cannibalism, to the extent that it ever existed, was a religious act.\n\n(2) Every example I have seen in NAtional Geographic of a crushed skull found in an ancient grave has been ascribed to ritual violence---not warfare. Even the Iceman was ambushed and shot in the back, and his body was unlooted. His killer knew him or his tribe and that knowledge was the reason for his murder. It wasn't war.\n\n(3) If you consider Stonehenge, which existed in wooden form for many centuries before it was upgraded to stone, and the stone site in Anatolia (I forget the name) that was occupied from about 10,000 BC to 8,000 BC, you have to conclude that cults and cultures were often spread over surprisingly vast areas. We know nothing about the political structures of the people who used these sites, but this does not indicate rampant warfare. Consider also the Silk Road, which operated long before China existed, and where human civilization---city-living---was actually born (not Egypt, not Mohenjo-Daro). Trade routes do not survive war well.\n\nFace it: civilization means holocaust for the Other and slavery for its survivors. \"Progress\" is an invention.\n\nI'm aware that the relevance of this viewpoint depends on its prominence in Wolfe's own worldview, but I doubt he'd disagree if presented with the same set of facts. When I read Latro I don't exactly feel like I get a diametrically opposed perspective." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F60C6A8.30401@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-14T16:26:16+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<1331740612.32969.YahooMailNeo@web84105.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote (14-03-2012 15:56):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Face it: civilization means holocaust for the Other and slavery for its\nsurvivors. \"Progress\" is an invention." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It's a legitimate view, but not the only one. We'll check it again in a \ncouple of millennia." } ] }, { "message_id": "<1331743300.29890.YahooMailNeo@web121006.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2012-03-14T16:41:40+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F60B88A.8060802@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "As my 3-yr-old would say, \"You are naughty!\"\n\n\n\n \nCraig Brewer wrote (14-03-2012 15:10):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And now I'm repeating myself, so I'll stop." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Watch the sarcasm..." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F60CA8B.8060407@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-14T16:42:51+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<1331737802.36157.YahooMailNeo@web121001.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/14/2012 10:10 AM, Craig Brewer wrote:\nI'm not saying you can't still draw \"spiritual\" conclusions about all \nof this. But they're going to be more indirect, I think, than \"this is \nWolfe's final theological statement on X.\" For example: Urth \ncontinues, and it's a better place, but it's not a perfect \"Christian\" \nworld, right?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think it is a big mistake to read Wolfe as one would read Chesterton \nor Lewis. He's not primarily \"justifying God's ways to man\". Nor is he \nprimarily demonstrating the moral & practical primacy of classical \nliberalism. There is some of that in there, but --although I vocally \ndetect a lot of things going on in his novels-- I don't detect that he \nfeels bound to any theological historicity. If I believed that, then I \nwould conclude that Wolfe has strong secret gnostic leanings. And I \ndon't. Briah is far more gnostic than Christian. Gnosticism absorbed \nelements of Christianity just as it did everything else so you're going \nto see Christian elements in any gnostic world. It is not for nothing \nthat Severian is named after a gnostic Christian sect.\n\nWolfe has said that he doesn't feel an especial need to express his \nfaith in his writings (citing Orson Scott Card as a counter-example). \nTrying to detect his theological beliefs from the setting or final \nresolution of Urth strikes me as folly.\n\nThe New Sun can be most naturally read as being in our future. The \nuniverse iterations allow you to elide that if you want to. But one \nshould not carry it to the next level and speculate on the theological \nimplications of the expanding/collapsing universes.\n\nJ" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1331744184.71410.YahooMailNeo@web84101.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "DAVID STOCKHOFF", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2012-03-14T16:56:24+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F60C6A8.30401@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I hope so!\n\n\n\n \nDAVID STOCKHOFF wrote (14-03-2012 15:56):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Face it: civilization means holocaust for the Other and slavery for its\nsurvivors. \"Progress\" is an invention." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It's a legitimate view, but not the only one. We'll check it again in a couple of millennia." } ] }, { "message_id": "<1331744544.92360.YahooMailNeo@web84102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "DAVID STOCKHOFF", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2012-03-14T17:02:24+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F60CA8B.8060407@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I agree. Though there are certainly some elements---such as the idea of incremental moral progress itself---that beg for this kind of analysis.\n\nAnyway, even if Urth is in our past, Severian's natal period is plainly in the future of that past. So I think your observation can be satisfied while still allowing the Urth-is-past theory.\n\n\n\n \n\nOn 3/14/2012 10:10 AM, Craig Brewer wrote: \nI'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? \nI think it is a big mistake to read Wolfe as one would read\n Chesterton or Lewis. He's not primarily \"justifying God's ways to\n man\". Nor is he primarily demonstrating the moral & practical\n primacy of classical liberalism. There is some of that in there, but\n --although I vocally detect a lot of things going on in his novels--\n I don't detect that he feels bound to any theological historicity.\n If I believed that, then I would conclude that Wolfe has strong\n secret gnostic leanings. And I don't. Briah is far more gnostic\n than Christian. Gnosticism absorbed elements of Christianity just as\n it did everything else so you're going to see Christian elements in\n any gnostic world. It is not for nothing that Severian is named\n after a gnostic Christian sect. \n\nWolfe has said that he doesn't feel an especial need to express his\n faith in his writings (citing Orson Scott Card as a\n counter-example). Trying to detect his theological beliefs from the\n setting or final resolution of Urth strikes me as folly.\n\nThe New Sun can be most naturally read as being in our future. The\n universe iterations allow you to elide that if you want to. But one\n should not carry it to the next level and speculate on the\n theological implications of the expanding/collapsing universes.\n\nJ" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1331744686.23213.YahooMailNeo@web121005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2012-03-14T17:04:46+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F60CA8B.8060407@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "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.\n\nAnd, James, do you remember where he makes that Card comparison? I recall it, but can't place it.\n\n\n\n \n\nOn 3/14/2012 10:10 AM, Craig Brewer wrote: \nI'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? \nI think it is a big mistake to read Wolfe as one would read\n Chesterton or Lewis. He's not primarily \"justifying God's ways to\n man\". Nor is he primarily demonstrating the moral & practical\n primacy of classical liberalism. There is some of that in there, but\n --although I vocally detect a lot of things going on in his novels--\n I don't detect that he feels bound to any theological historicity.\n If I believed that, then I would conclude that Wolfe has strong\n secret gnostic leanings. And I don't. Briah is far more gnostic\n than Christian. Gnosticism absorbed elements of Christianity just as\n it did everything else so you're going to see Christian elements in\n any gnostic world. It is not for nothing that Severian is named\n after a gnostic Christian sect. \n\nWolfe has said that he doesn't feel an especial need to express his\n faith in his writings (citing Orson Scott Card as a\n counter-example). Trying to detect his theological beliefs from the\n setting or final resolution of Urth strikes me as folly.\n\nThe New Sun can be most naturally read as being in our future. The\n universe iterations allow you to elide that if you want to. But one\n should not carry it to the next level and speculate on the\n theological implications of the expanding/collapsing universes.\n\nJ" } ] }, { "message_id": "<3B06CF8970C543E586D40846C74A9816@Rover>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2012-03-14T17:10:05+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Lee Berman " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "\"Scattered across 10,000 worlds..\" right? Still I wonder. We don't seem\nto encounter any of these humans from worlds other than Urth (maybe\nTyphon?). Or if we do, they are evolved to the point that we may have \ndifficulty calling them human, like Typhon, apports, B and F, Father \nInire and the Cumaean, Neighbors and Inhumi." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Of those you list, Typhon is clearly human, the others (except any random human apports) are clearly not." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It would seem there are far worse actions than mass slaughter of humanity.\nThe funny thing is that in both the OT and in BotNS, it is difficult to pin\ndown exactly what was so wicked about ante-diluvian earth and Urth.\n \nWas it idol worship? Human sacrifice? Witchcraft? Mating with demons and producing \nmonstrous offspring? Pedophilia, incest and other sexual deviance? All these are \nhinted at in the OT and BotNS but no clear reason is given for the need to wipe out \n99% of humanity on a planet. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Perhaps you should consider re-reading the book. The flooding of Urth was a physical consequence of the renewal of the Sun, not a godly punishment. There was an alternative, i.e. evacuation of the moribund Urth, as per Ash’s future.\n\nThe punishment (the black hole) happened much earlier, apparently as a consequence of Typhon’s expansionism.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F60D1CF.9080503@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-14T17:13:51+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<1331744686.23213.YahooMailNeo@web121005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I can't place it at the moment. He doesn't call Card out by name. He \njust said that he has a \"friend\" who was a Mormon and worked his \nreligion in everything he wrote. Wolfe said he was not like that." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/14/2012 12:04 PM, Craig Brewer wrote:\nAnd, James, do you remember where he makes that Card comparison?" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-14T19:03:00+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F60D1CF.9080503@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Craig Brewer: " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "1) The sun was dying out (whether \"naturally\" or because of the Hieros), \nso humanity was up a creek, anyway. From a broad perspective, the flood's \n\"genocide\" also kept humanity on Urth/Ushas going, creating (if not exactly \nsaving) more lives." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nI disagree. In the Master Ash episode, he makes it clear to Severian that\nalmost the entire population was rescued from the freezing Urth. Making it\nclear to the reader that renewing the planet was not for the purpose of\nsaving or preserving humanity per se. Wolfe would not have put this section\nin unless he was trying to say it was more than a racial survival issue.\n \nEither millions of people died in the Flood on Urth over a simple nostalgia\nfor renewing the physical planet of origin or there is something more deeply \nspiritual going on. (though nostalgia is a form of spirituality I'd say)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "2) Renewing the sun isn't a spiritual salvation like Christ's sacrifice." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nAgreed. But renewing the sun is like Noah's Flood which I think Wolfe is trying\nto say WAS a form of spiritual salvation of humanity. I'm not sure how most\nChristian theologians feel about Noah's Flood but this view makes sense if you\ndon't want to believe in a God who is capriciously genocidal and/or uncaring \nabout His creations. To justify the Flood, one must believe in a huge spiritual\nbenefit to balance the painful deaths of so many millions of people and animals.\n \n Urth continues, and it's a better place, but it's not a perfect \"Christian\" world, \nright? There's still something like idol worship of Severian, etc. But at least it's \ncloser, right? So it's like steps toward salvation where the central \"true\" story \ngradually becomes more and better understood/told/remembered/lived. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "3) ...Obviously, life just keeps going on Ushas, although in a different (and hopefully \nbetter) form. ...I'm not saying you can't still draw \"spiritual\" conclusions about all of \nthis. 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 \nleast it's closer, right? .." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nYes. 100% agreed. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-14T19:55:15+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "James Wynn: He's [Wolfe] not primarily \"justifying God's ways to man\". Nor \nis he primarily demonstrating the moral & practical primacy of classical \nliberalism." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nAgreed." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Briah is far more gnostic than Christian. Gnosticism absorbed \nelements of Christianity just as it did everything else so you're going \nto see Christian elements in any gnostic world. It is not for nothing \nthat Severian is named after a gnostic Christian sect." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nGood points. In truth I don't understand the arguments of those who insist\nBriah can only be described as a christian place. It seems like a stubborn \nattempt to cling to a first impression, rejecting any and all evidence\nencountered to the contrary." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I don't detect that he feels bound to any theological historicity. If I \nbelieved that, then I would conclude that Wolfe has strong secret gnostic \nleanings. And I don't. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nI don't \"conclude\" it either. But I have some suspicions of it as a possibility.\nI agree he probably doesn't feel bound to theological historicity. And I agree\nwith you that making a conclusion about WOlfe's personal beliefs based on his\nfictional writings would be an error.\n \nMy suspicions rise mostly from his interview quotes. And most specifically his \nstatements of belief in the reality of pagan gods. Any evidence of Wolfe's \npersonal gnostic leanings from his fiction pale in comparison to those blunt\nstatements.\n \nThis is not to say interview quotes represent any final authority on interpreting\nan artist's work. But I think we become better informed about art when we\nunderstand more about the artist as a person. Our understanding is enriched when\nwe know that James Tiptree Jr. was a woman, Picasso was Spanish and John Waters is\ngay." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But one should not carry it to the next level and speculate on the theological \nimplications of the expanding/collapsing universes." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nWe'll have to disagree on that one. I think the literary creation of Yesod is an\ninvitation to do just that. Plus there are some supporting Wolfe interview quotes.\nApheta is a \"higher being\" etc. \n \nheh. Roy C. Lackey wanted no part of that. He considered Apheta to be a bug with the \n\"larvae\" reference and that sexual glow worm abdomen. And Tzadkiel's wings are rather\nbutterfly-like. But still, Wolfe calls them higher beings.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn: Typhon is clearly human" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nPerhaps to you. Not to me and not to many others." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Perhaps you should consider re-reading the book." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nMind your manners, Gerry. You've shown great improvement of late but that was a \nrelapse. Plus I've read the books more times than you have and I understand them \nbetter. But I won't make the same discourteous suggestion you did. ;- )\nsame\n \n \n \n \n \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2012-03-14T20:43:16+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Lee Berman " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Gerry Quinn: Typhon is clearly human" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Perhaps to you. Not to me and not to many others." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "He’s never described as anything other than human, albeit possibly of extra-Solar stock. The same applies to Piaton, onto whom his head is grafted. His sons, daughters and concubines are human. His very face, which is so important to his rule, is human.\n\nWhat reasons have you to believe he is a cacogen? Other cacogens in the books are clearly referenced as such (and their non-human faces are a recurring theme)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Perhaps you should consider re-reading the book." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Mind your manners, Gerry. You've shown great improvement of late but that was a \nrelapse. Plus I've read the books more times than you have and I understand them \nbetter. But I won't make the same discourteous suggestion you did. ;- )\nsame" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I’ll take no lessons in manners from you, Lee. Only the other day you posted yet another of your inane rants about me, which I ignored. As for your understanding of the books, 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. \n\nRe-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.\n\n- Gerry Quinn\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F610966.3010400@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-14T21:11:02+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Look, the justification for Ushas is simple:\nHumanity's descendants cruelly (tortuously) transformed animals into the \nHeiros. And now the Heiros are returning the favor to ensure humanity \n--in every universe possible-- will progress to a form in which they \nwill torture the Hieros into existence.\n\nYes, there's a theological aspect to this. In Romans, Paul cites God's \nsovereignty over the destiny of individuals and nations. That he has \nknows...has even chosen since the creation of the world who would be \nsaved and who would be damned. He cites the verse from the O.T. saying \n\"Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated.\" His imaginary audience \nresponds \"Then how does God judge us since no one has resisted his \nWill?\" Paul answers \"Who are you to judge God? Doesn't the maker have \nthe power and right to make of his creation whatever he wants? Some for \nhonor and some for destruction.\"\n\nThis is God as torturer. And it is a similar justification offered in \nJob (\"I'm God. I have a plan. I'm not inclined to explain how I arrived \nat it and, more importantly, and I'm not obliged to.\" People who ask for \na \"Christian\" justification of God's command to the Israelites to \ncompletely drive out the Canaanites, have misunderstood the God of the \nBible.\n\nBut all this doesn't precisely map to the Heiros and it's not supposed \nto. In that case, this issue is this: \"Was it wrong for the Heiros to \ndestroy humanity to create Ushas?\"\n\"[Shrug] The Hieros are humanity's creation. Who is has done the wrong \nhere? \"\n\nThis is a scenario that intentionally subverts the idea of personal \nguilt. And, no, there is nothing Christian or even Catholic about that. \nThere is a theme here, but there is no \"moral\".\n\nJ." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/14/2012 2:03 PM, Lee Berman wrote:\nCraig Brewer:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "1) The sun was dying out (whether \"naturally\" or because of the Hieros),\nso humanity was up a creek, anyway. From a broad perspective, the flood's\n\"genocide\" also kept humanity on Urth/Ushas going, creating (if not exactly\nsaving) more lives." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I disagree. In the Master Ash episode, he makes it clear to Severian that\nalmost the entire population was rescued from the freezing Urth. Making it\nclear to the reader that renewing the planet was not for the purpose of\nsaving or preserving humanity per se. Wolfe would not have put this section\nin unless he was trying to say it was more than a racial survival issue.\n\nEither millions of people died in the Flood on Urth over a simple nostalgia\nfor renewing the physical planet of origin or there is something more deeply\nspiritual going on. (though nostalgia is a form of spirituality I'd say)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "2) Renewing the sun isn't a spiritual salvation like Christ's sacrifice." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Agreed. But renewing the sun is like Noah's Flood which I think Wolfe is trying\nto say WAS a form of spiritual salvation of humanity. I'm not sure how most\nChristian theologians feel about Noah's Flood but this view makes sense if you\ndon't want to believe in a God who is capriciously genocidal and/or uncaring\nabout His creations. To justify the Flood, one must believe in a huge spiritual\nbenefit to balance the painful deaths of so many millions of people and animals.\n\n Urth continues, and it's a better place, but it's not a perfect \"Christian\" world,\nright? There's still something like idol worship of Severian, etc. But at least it's\ncloser, right? So it's like steps toward salvation where the central \"true\" story\ngradually becomes more and better understood/told/remembered/lived." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "3) ...Obviously, life just keeps going on Ushas, although in a different (and hopefully\nbetter) form. ...I'm not saying you can't still draw \"spiritual\" conclusions about all of\nthis. 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\nleast it's closer, right? .." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Yes. 100% agreed. \t\t \t \t\t\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F610B90.3000207@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-14T21:20:16+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/14/2012 2:55 PM, Lee Berman wrote:\nMy suspicions rise mostly from his interview quotes. And most specifically his\nstatements of belief in the reality of pagan gods. Any evidence of Wolfe's\npersonal gnostic leanings from his fiction pale in comparison to those blunt\nstatements." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "CS Lewis also poses the possibility of the reality of pagan gods in some \nfor or another.\n\nThe Apostle Paul, while accepting that offerings to idols are without \nvalue, yet asserts that the \"gods\" to which those offerings are given \nwere actually demons. There's something of this in The Long Sun: The \nWhorl gods are \"daemons\". They are also twisted demonic versions of the \nOlympic gods.\n\nThere is nothing heretical in Wolfe's proposition that the pagan gods \nwere \"real\".\n\nJ." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-14T21:40:31+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn wrote:\n...what you seem to “understand” is some weird\nconfection that has little relation to the text — for example your claim (to\nwhich I was responding) that the flooding — which is clearly caused by\ngravitational radiation from the White Fountain - was actually instead a\npunishment from God for Urth’s wickedness." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "What makes you think that the one excludes the other?\n\nI might now suggest that you reread the books, and concentrate on the\nCathedral of the Pelerines." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2012-03-14T22:03:22+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Gerry Quinn wrote:\n...what you seem to “understand” is some weird\nconfection that has little relation to the text — for example your claim (to\nwhich I was responding) that the flooding — which is clearly caused by\ngravitational radiation from the White Fountain - was actually instead a\npunishment from God for Urth’s wickedness." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "What makes you think that the one excludes the other?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Because we know what the punishment for Urth’s wickedness was — the black hole. The White Fountain was a reward of sorts, and depended on a choice by the Epitome of Urth, standing in for Urth’s people. The context is quite different from the Flood.\n*****************************************\nThe prophetess said, \"He has done harm too by saying here that you would bring destruction. I have told them the truth that you would bring a rebirth, but they would not credit me.\"\nI told her, \"He has told the truth, as well as you. If the new is to be born, the old must be swept aside. One who plants wheat kills grass. You are both prophets, although of different kinds; and each of you has prophesied as the Increate instructed you.\"\n*****************************************\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-14T22:36:15+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<1331744686.23213.YahooMailNeo@web121005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, I'm way behind in all the gritty details of this debate, but (that's\nwhere you all stop reading - ach, well)... Just because Wolfe is no Card\n(is that a pun?) doesn't mean he can't be a clearly spiritual (and, dare I\nsay it, 'evangelistic') writer in his own way. I, at least, have found a\nrichly rendered 'incarnational' and 'improvisational' sort of 'apologia'\nand 'euangelion' (yes, radically distinct in many important ways from the\nlikes of Chesterton or Lewis) *IN THE TEXTS* of the Solar Cycle, an\ninvitational and 'subversive' Christian orthodoxy and orthopraxy (be they\never so slyly idiosyncratic) that basically 'triumphs' over all the other\nsystems (e.g. from polytheism to gnosticism) in a theo-comedic 'underdog'\nsort of way (for those who wish to see it - Wolfe is no bully). [Akin to\nSt Paul's 'cosmic judo' sort of atonement theology in Colossians\n2:15\n.]\n\nI believe that this being the case in no way shuts down or closes the\n'infinite play of meaning' that his narratives clearly intend to induce.\n But it does give that play certain contours and trajectories if we want to\nacknowledge them.\n\nI hope to write about it in more detail some day...\n\n-DOJP" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Craig Brewer wrote:\nI think like James, apparently. I'm just generally skeptical of approaches\nthat start by assuming what Wolfe must think and then try to find that in\nthe text. I'd rather start with the story and stay with it. I know I just\nsaid not long ago that you have to take his Catholicism into account, but I\nthink of it more as an intellectual and allusion-based context, rather than\na program. Doesn't mean the stories can't end up saying those things, but\nit's a matter of how you get there, I suppose.\n\nAnd, James, do you remember where he makes that Card comparison? I recall\nit, but can't place it.\n\n ------------------------------\n*From:* James Wynn \n*To:* The Urth Mailing List \n*Sent:* Wednesday, March 14, 2012 11:42 AM\n*Subject:* Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es)m\n\n On 3/14/2012 10:10 AM, Craig Brewer wrote:\n\nI'm not saying you can't still draw \"spiritual\" conclusions about all of\nthis. But they're going to be more indirect, I think, than \"this is Wolfe's\nfinal theological statement on X.\" For example: Urth continues, and it's a\nbetter place, but it's not a perfect \"Christian\" world, right?\n\n\nI think it is a big mistake to read Wolfe as one would read Chesterton or\nLewis. He's not primarily \"justifying God's ways to man\". Nor is he\nprimarily demonstrating the moral & practical primacy of classical\nliberalism. There is some of that in there, but --although I vocally detect\na lot of things going on in his novels-- I don't detect that he feels bound\nto any theological historicity. If I believed that, then I would conclude\nthat Wolfe has strong secret gnostic leanings. And I don't. Briah is far\nmore gnostic than Christian. Gnosticism absorbed elements of Christianity\njust as it did everything else so you're going to see Christian elements in\nany gnostic world. It is not for nothing that Severian is named after a\ngnostic Christian sect.\n\nWolfe has said that he doesn't feel an especial need to express his faith\nin his writings (citing Orson Scott Card as a counter-example). Trying to\ndetect his theological beliefs from the setting or final resolution of Urth\nstrikes me as folly.\n\nThe New Sun can be most naturally read as being in our future. The\nuniverse iterations allow you to elide that if you want to. But one should\nnot carry it to the next level and speculate on the theological\nimplications of the expanding/collapsing universes.\n\nJ\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-14T22:39:50+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F610B90.3000207@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "'There is nothing heretical in Wolfe's proposition that the pagan gods were\n\"real\".'\n\nYes, thank you!\n\n-DOJP" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 9:20 PM, James Wynn wrote:\nOn 3/14/2012 2:55 PM, Lee Berman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "My suspicions rise mostly from his interview quotes. And most\nspecifically his\nstatements of belief in the reality of pagan gods. Any evidence of Wolfe's\npersonal gnostic leanings from his fiction pale in comparison to those\nblunt\nstatements." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "CS Lewis also poses the possibility of the reality of pagan gods in some\nfor or another.\n\nThe Apostle Paul, while accepting that offerings to idols are without\nvalue, yet asserts that the \"gods\" to which those offerings are given were\nactually demons. There's something of this in The Long Sun: The Whorl gods\nare \"daemons\". They are also twisted demonic versions of the Olympic gods.\n\nThere is nothing heretical in Wolfe's proposition that the pagan gods were\n\"real\".\n\nJ.\n\n______________________________**_________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F6126C4.8060109@clueland.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at clueland.com" }, "date": "2012-03-14T23:16:20+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F610966.3010400@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/14/2012 4:11 PM, James Wynn wrote:\nLook, the justification for Ushas is simple:\nHumanity's descendants cruelly (tortuously) transformed animals into the\nHeiros. And now the Heiros are returning the favor to ensure humanity\n--in every universe possible-- will progress to a form in which they\nwill torture the Hieros into existence." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Argh again!" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at clueland.com\nComputational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana\n< http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F612A35.9020604@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-14T23:31:01+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F6126C4.8060109@clueland.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/14/2012 4:11 PM, James Wynn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Look, the justification for Ushas is simple:\nHumanity's descendants cruelly (tortuously) transformed animals into the\nHeiros. And now the Heiros are returning the favor to ensure humanity\n--in every universe possible-- will progress to a form in which they\nwill torture the Hieros into existence." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/14/2012 6:16 PM, Jeff Wilson wrote:\nArgh again!" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes, Heiros is a bad term in this instance, since we're differentiating \nthe human creators from their creation.\n\nBut if the Yesodis only want to ascend with the Heiros humans, why do \nthey repeat the process again and again?" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1331773272.96485.YahooMailNeo@web121005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2012-03-15T01:01:12+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F612A35.9020604@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "My bad, too. I often use \"Hieros\" as shorthand for all Yesodis/Hiero-etceteras. And I think I did it earlier today." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/14/2012 4:11 PM, James Wynn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Look, the justification for Ushas is simple:\nHumanity's descendants cruelly (tortuously) transformed animals into the\nHeiros. And now the Heiros are returning the favor to ensure humanity\n--in every universe possible-- will progress to a form in which they\nwill torture the Hieros into existence." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/14/2012 6:16 PM, Jeff Wilson wrote:\nArgh again!" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes, Heiros is a bad term in this instance, since we're differentiating \nthe human creators from their creation.\n\nBut if the Yesodis only want to ascend with the Heiros humans, why do \nthey repeat the process again and again?" } ] }, { "message_id": "<056C538D-661C-4DB6-962F-010FCA09ED17@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-15T01:33:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<1331773272.96485.YahooMailNeo@web121005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think we're dangerously close to being a bunch of old people grumping about things no one else can be bothered to know about.\n\n\nNo dia 15/03/2012, ?s 01:01, Craig Brewer escreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "My bad, too. I often use \"Hieros\" as shorthand for all Yesodis/Hiero-etceteras. And I think I did it earlier today.\n\nFrom: James Wynn \nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nSent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 6:31 PM\nSubject: Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 3/14/2012 4:11 PM, James Wynn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Look, the justification for Ushas is simple:\nHumanity's descendants cruelly (tortuously) transformed animals into the\nHeiros. And now the Heiros are returning the favor to ensure humanity\n--in every universe possible-- will progress to a form in which they\nwill torture the Hieros into existence." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 3/14/2012 6:16 PM, Jeff Wilson wrote:\nArgh again!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Yes, Heiros is a bad term in this instance, since we're differentiating \nthe human creators from their creation.\n\nBut if the Yesodis only want to ascend with the Heiros humans, why do \nthey repeat the process again and again?\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-15T02:06:26+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "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.\nI'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.\n\n\nNo dia 14/03/2012, ?s 22:36, Daniel Petersen escreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "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.]\n\nI 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.\n\nI hope to write about it in more detail some day...\n\n-DOJP" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F617920.1020702@clueland.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at clueland.com" }, "date": "2012-03-15T05:07:44+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F612A35.9020604@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/14/2012 6:31 PM, James Wynn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 3/14/2012 4:11 PM, James Wynn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Look, the justification for Ushas is simple:\nHumanity's descendants cruelly (tortuously) transformed animals into the\nHeiros. And now the Heiros are returning the favor to ensure humanity\n--in every universe possible-- will progress to a form in which they\nwill torture the Hieros into existence." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 3/14/2012 6:16 PM, Jeff Wilson wrote:\nArgh again!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Yes, Heiros is a bad term in this instance, since we're differentiating\nthe human creators from their creation.\n\nBut if the Yesodis only want to ascend with the Heiros humans, why do\nthey repeat the process again and again?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Apparently the Ascension isn't repeated each time. I also get the sense \nthat the Yesodis, or at least some faction of them, want to avoid the \ntorturous part as much as possible, thus their use of eidolons to \nsupplement purpose-made hierodules and other underpeople. This might \nexplain why the semi-exiled Inire, himself a likely replicant, makes \nmastiff-men and anpiels for the Autarch's purposes, but the Cumaean and \nF, B, & O work through physically human agents.\n\nI wonder which part of Tzadkiel is on which side." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at clueland.com\nComputational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana\n< http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-15T11:59:11+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F617920.1020702@clueland.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn: Only the other day you posted yet another of your inane rants \nabout me, which I ignored." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nI don't think that's true. Perhaps you could post my inane rant to remind me?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "what you seem to “understand” is some weird confection that has little relation \nto the text" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nPerhaps that's so but then it applies to all those others with whom I happen \nto agree with. You do seem to be at war with a number of people here." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Re-reading was intended as a helpful suggestion. I should perhaps amplify it by \nproposing that you concentrate on the meaning of the text as written and which you \nfrequently ignore in favour of cryptic clues allegedly hidden in the syllables and \nsuch like." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I am pretty sure there is no amount of re-readings which would cause me to simplify\nmy understanding down to one level and/or force my interpretations to be into \ncongruence with your own, which is what you seem to be aiming for. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<49567495894D462791E7900E6A1E101E@Rover>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2012-03-15T12:52:46+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Lee Berman " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 11:59 AM\nTo: urth at urth.net \nSubject: (urth) Lupiverse(es)\nGerry Quinn: Only the other day you posted yet another of your inane rants \nabout me, which I ignored." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nI don't think that's true. Perhaps you could post my inane rant to remind me?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "what you seem to “understand” is some weird confection that has little relation \nto the text" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nPerhaps that's so but then it applies to all those others with whom I happen \nto agree with. You do seem to be at war with a number of people here." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Re-reading was intended as a helpful suggestion. I should perhaps amplify it by \nproposing that you concentrate on the meaning of the text as written and which you \nfrequently ignore in favour of cryptic clues allegedly hidden in the syllables and \nsuch like." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I am pretty sure there is no amount of re-readings which would cause me to simplify\nmy understanding down to one level and/or force my interpretations to be into \ncongruence with your own, which is what you seem to be aiming for. " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-15T12:56:25+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<49567495894D462791E7900E6A1E101E@Rover>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "James Wynn: The Apostle Paul, while accepting that offerings to idols are \nwithout value, yet asserts that the \"gods\" to which those offerings are given \nwere actually demons. There's something of this in The Long Sun: The \nWhorl gods are \"daemons\". They are also twisted demonic versions of the \nOlympic gods. There is nothing heretical in Wolfe's proposition that the \npagan gods were \"real\"." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nBut, heresy aside, can such views be considered as leaning toward gnostic?\n \nI had a discussion/debate with James Jordan a long time ago and he professed\na personal belief in \"modern\" Christian theology. It really bothered him that \naspects of the Sun Series could be interpreted in a manner which granted reality \nto pagan gods and monsters. (though, ironically, it was from his Wolfe interview\nthat Wolfe's pagan beliefs are most often quoted)\n \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2012-03-15T13:01:37+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Lee Berman " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn: " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Only the other day you posted yet another of your inane rants \nabout me, which I ignored." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I don't think that's true. Perhaps you could post my inane rant to remind me?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It’s deleted. Some tripe about my “provocations”. It started off going all around the world but I knew it would end with me." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "what you seem to “understand” is some weird confection that has little relation \nto the text" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Perhaps that's so but then it applies to all those others with whom I happen \nto agree with. You do seem to be at war with a number of people here." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "If you call finding fault with someone’s interpretations “being at war” I guess I must be continually at war. I don’t take the view that you seem to want to promote that any interpretation is as good as any other. Certain interpretations seem to hang largely on ignoring what Wolfe wrote, developing elaborate hypotheses based on questionable “clues”, and justifying it by greatly exaggerating the obscurity of Wolfe’s writing." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Re-reading was intended as a helpful suggestion. I should perhaps amplify it by \nproposing that you concentrate on the meaning of the text as written and which you \nfrequently ignore in favour of cryptic clues allegedly hidden in the syllables and \nsuch like." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I am pretty sure there is no amount of re-readings which would cause me to simplify\nmy understanding down to one level and/or force my interpretations to be into \ncongruence with your own, which is what you seem to be aiming for. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "How about forcing them into congruence with the text?\n\n- Gerry Quinn " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F61FF19.2010205@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2012-03-15T14:39:21+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F617920.1020702@clueland.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/15/2012 1:07 AM, Jeff Wilson wrote:\nOn 3/14/2012 6:31 PM, James Wynn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "On 3/14/2012 4:11 PM, James Wynn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "Look, the justification for Ushas is simple:\nHumanity's descendants cruelly (tortuously) transformed animals \ninto the\nHeiros. And now the Heiros are returning the favor to ensure humanity\n--in every universe possible-- will progress to a form in which they\nwill torture the Hieros into existence." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "On 3/14/2012 6:16 PM, Jeff Wilson wrote:\nArgh again!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Yes, Heiros is a bad term in this instance, since we're differentiating\nthe human creators from their creation.\n\nBut if the Yesodis only want to ascend with the Heiros humans, why do\nthey repeat the process again and again?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Apparently the Ascension isn't repeated each time. I also get the \nsense that the Yesodis, or at least some faction of them, want to \navoid the torturous part as much as possible, thus their use of \neidolons to supplement purpose-made hierodules and other underpeople. \nThis might explain why the semi-exiled Inire, himself a likely \nreplicant, makes mastiff-men and anpiels for the Autarch's purposes, \nbut the Cumaean and F, B, & O work through physically human agents.\n\nI wonder which part of Tzadkiel is on which side." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "As a side note, since theology has once again raised its leering head:\n\nThe story of the Yesodis at first might strike one as a made-up tale of \nangels trying to recreate their Creator. This is not entirely accurate \nbut the allusions (I won't say \"allegory\" because there is nothing there \nin Christianity for it to indicate, except perhaps Lucifer in reverse) \nare clear.\n\nOn second glance the story seems based in some form of Platonism in \nwhich all material things strive to reunite with the Ideal.\n\nOn third glance, there is a resonance with the story of the Parliament \nof the Birds as retold by John Crowley in /Little, Big /and which in \nturn resonates with the stories of the Sidhe and their derivations. And \nthat resonance is this: that the fairies need a mortal \nking/consort/progenitor. This connection has been thoroughly discussed \nhere, of course, whether in terms of materialism or genetic/breeding \nprograms.\n\nFinally, one googles \"Yesod\" and finds something like this Wiki [with \nnotes]:\n\n\n Yesod\n\nThe sephirah of Yesod translates spiritual concepts into actions that \nunite us with God.\n[Which is what the Yesodis are trying to do.]\n\nIt is often associated with the Moon, because it is the sphere which \nreflects the light of all the other sephirot into Malkuth [the lowest \nsphere], and it is associated with the sexual organs, because it is here \nthat the higher spheres connect to the earth.\n[First, I recall some debate about a moonlike disk observed by Severian \nin UOTNS, so there may be a small hint there. Second, perhaps the most \nsignificant thing Severian does on/in Yesod is to mate with Apheta.]\n\nIt plays the role of collecting and balancing the different and opposing \nenergies of Hod and Netzach, and also from Tiphereth \n above it, storing and \ndistributing it throughout the world. It is likened to the 'engine-room' \nof creation.\n[Which has many potential translations into science fiction, such as a \nWhite Fountain.]\n\nThe archangel of this sphere is Gabriel \n, and the Cherubim \n is the Angelic order.\n[Or Tzadkiel and the Hierodules.]\n\nSo UOTNS at least seems to be derived from a contemplation of the \nKabbalah, or at least part of it (and that is a significant point), even \nan allegory of it. I doubt an analysis of the other higher spheres will \nreveal much more of interest, but further parallels/connections would \nlogically suggest a deeper involvement with the Kabbalah as opposed to \nthe Bible or something else.\n\nSo as to theology, I suggest that there is too much non-Christian \nmaterial here that has little to do with---or even predates---Catholic \ntheology for it to be useful as an analytic tool beyond what Wolfe has \nsaid he believes or that he likely believes.\n\nTo conclude, after a few more transformations, I might state the tale of \nYesod thus: Christ (the Savior King) has come and gone. How to recreate \nhim or make him come again?\n\nThe most obvious point this raises is that since \"Christ\" has already \nbeen transformed into an ascended race, there is no need to look for \nhim. He belongs to the source domain and we already have a target domain.\n\nThe next is that the story can be interpreted as a kind of satire, even \na comedy. What could be more arrogant than rebuilding or summoning \nChrist? And yet what Christian would not desire, at some level, for that \nto happen? (Perhaps not a modern one, but certainly a medieval one.)\n\nAnd finally, if you take the Wiki entry above as a fairly literal \nblueprint, the sexual union of Severian and Apheta could be taken as \nproof that Severian's race (just saying \"humans\" is too imprecise) is \nindeed that of the Heiros, whether the original or the new one that is \nto come. (Or not, since we know the Yesodis have been trying over and \nover---but we don't know how far they have gotten before.) So there is \ncause for optimism." } ] }, { "message_id": "<1331825071.5873.YahooMailNeo@web121003.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2012-03-15T15:24:31+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F61FF19.2010205@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "David: >>On second glance the story seems based in some form of Platonism in which all material things strive to reunite with the Ideal.\n\n\nI 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 \n\nwrite 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." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-15T16:37:05+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<1331825071.5873.YahooMailNeo@web121003.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Jeff Wilson: I wonder which part of Tzadkiel is on which side." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nSheesh. For me this is such an incisive question. I think showing\nTzadkiel evolving through so many phases including different levels \nof beast, levels of man and levels of angel is meant as a metaphor \nwith a purpose.\n \nI won't say he carries \"all\" perspectives within himself. That is \nreserved for The Increate. But having lived in so many different forms,\nhe carries quite a few perspectives, allowing an ability to be \nessentially on all the conflicting sides shown in the story.\n \nMy view is that the old Autarch's rule is a pale reflection of the \ntrue rule of Father Inire. His secret words and his penchant for serving \nin various guises is borrowed from Inire, who is much more adept in these\nskills.\n \nLikewise I see Inire as a pale reflection of Tzadkiel, whose mechanisms and\nability to play multiple roles is so much greater than his. Following the\nprogression, Tzadkiel would be a pale reflection of The Increate who is the\nultimate- universally found everywhere and embodied in everyone and every \nthing.\n \n \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-15T16:48:51+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well thought out and stated, Lee." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Lee Berman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Jeff Wilson: I wonder which part of Tzadkiel is on which side." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Sheesh. For me this is such an incisive question. I think showing\nTzadkiel evolving through so many phases including different levels\nof beast, levels of man and levels of angel is meant as a metaphor\nwith a purpose.\n\nI won't say he carries \"all\" perspectives within himself. That is\nreserved for The Increate. But having lived in so many different forms,\nhe carries quite a few perspectives, allowing an ability to be\nessentially on all the conflicting sides shown in the story.\n\nMy view is that the old Autarch's rule is a pale reflection of the\ntrue rule of Father Inire. His secret words and his penchant for serving\nin various guises is borrowed from Inire, who is much more adept in these\nskills.\n\nLikewise I see Inire as a pale reflection of Tzadkiel, whose mechanisms and\nability to play multiple roles is so much greater than his. Following the\nprogression, Tzadkiel would be a pale reflection of The Increate who is the\nultimate- ?universally found everywhere and embodied in everyone and every\nthing.\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F622089.7030302@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2012-03-15T17:02:01+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<1331825071.5873.YahooMailNeo@web121003.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Monism! Yes!\n\nThat word was somewhere lurking in my forebrain. is it my hindbrain?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/15/2012 11:24 AM, Craig Brewer wrote:\nDavid: >>On second glance the story seems based in some form of \nPlatonism in which all material things strive to reunite with the Ideal.\n\nI said it before, but I like to repeat myself lately. David's idea \nabout Platonism here is almost identical to Milton's \"monistic\" \ntheology. One day, I need to\nwrite up the similarities I see. Besides, it'd be fun to suggest that \na Catholic writer and a violently anti-Catholic writer both had \nsimilar theologies...at least in their more imaginative writings.\n\n\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F622105.7060109@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2012-03-15T17:04:05+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The standard of evidence is certainly lower for a theory based on \n\"reflections\" than one based on identity." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/15/2012 12:37 PM, Lee Berman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Jeff Wilson: I wonder which part of Tzadkiel is on which side." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Sheesh. For me this is such an incisive question. I think showing\nTzadkiel evolving through so many phases including different levels\nof beast, levels of man and levels of angel is meant as a metaphor\nwith a purpose.\n\nI won't say he carries \"all\" perspectives within himself. That is\nreserved for The Increate. But having lived in so many different forms,\nhe carries quite a few perspectives, allowing an ability to be\nessentially on all the conflicting sides shown in the story.\n\nMy view is that the old Autarch's rule is a pale reflection of the\ntrue rule of Father Inire. His secret words and his penchant for serving\nin various guises is borrowed from Inire, who is much more adept in these\nskills.\n\nLikewise I see Inire as a pale reflection of Tzadkiel, whose mechanisms and\nability to play multiple roles is so much greater than his. Following the\nprogression, Tzadkiel would be a pale reflection of The Increate who is the\nultimate- universally found everywhere and embodied in everyone and every\nthing.\n\n \t\t \t \t\t\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F622767.9050906@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-15T17:31:19+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/15/2012 7:56 AM, Lee Berman wrote:\nBut, heresy aside, can such views be considered as leaning toward gnostic?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't think so. Not in themselves.\n\nWolfe's off-hand proposition that the gods were \"real\" in some way but \nnot deserving of worship would only be directly tied to conventional \ngnosticism if he double-down and stated that the gods were also the \ndirect creators of the universe or the planet. Many Greek philosophers \nopined that their gods had been kings around whom cults had formed. Paul \nthought they were demons or fallen angels who paid no attention to the \nsacrifices offered to their images. Lewis seems to have toyed with the \nidea that they were created powerful beings who, again, were unworthy of \nworship. Wolfe's comment demonstrates that he is a mythopoetist--that he \nbelieves the myths carry significant truths --spiritual truths-- just as \nelectronic protocols carry data.\n\nFor more understanding of what he believes about mythology, study \nGreen's conversation with his psychiatrist in There Are Doors.\n\nJ." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-15T18:07:46+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<1331825071.5873.YahooMailNeo@web121003.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, let me just say that having recently re-read Milton's Paradise Lost\n(my all-time favourite poem by my all-time favourite poet), I cannot\nimagine two more opposed doctrines of God than those evinced respectively\nin PL and Wolfe's Solar Cycle (particularly the Outsider): where Milton\nprofesses profusely that the God of his epic is good, just, fair, and\nperhaps above all loving - yet one finds the actual portrayal of that God\nto be very unconvincing in all these areas - Wolfe only rather quietly and\nrarely overtly claims this for the God of the Solar Cycle, yet demonstrates\njust such attributes very, very convincingly in the palpable pathos of (for\nexample) the Outsider's interactions with Silk and, through Silk as a\nleader, his interactions with an oppressed people.\n\nThe God of the Long and Short Sun, at least, looks far too implicitly and\nimpressively Trinitarian to be saddled with Milton's monism. IMHO.\n\n-DOJP" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Craig Brewer wrote:\nDavid: >>On second glance the story seems based in some form of Platonism\nin which all material things strive to reunite with the Ideal.\n\nI said it before, but I like to repeat myself lately. David's idea about\nPlatonism here is almost identical to Milton's \"monistic\" theology. One\nday, I need to\nwrite up the similarities I see. Besides, it'd be fun to suggest that a\nCatholic writer and a violently anti-Catholic writer both had similar\ntheologies...at least in their more imaginative writings.\n\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F623158.2000003@clueland.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at clueland.com" }, "date": "2012-03-15T18:13:44+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F61FF19.2010205@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/15/2012 9:39 AM, David Stockhoff wrote:\nThe next is that the story can be interpreted as a kind of satire, even\na comedy. What could be more arrogant than rebuilding or summoning\nChrist? And yet what Christian would not desire, at some level, for that\nto happen? (Perhaps not a modern one, but certainly a medieval one.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This is not the least common take on things, with people misguidedly \nseeking to possess or coerce their divine benefactor rather than follow \nhis example. It is repeated in UOTNS with Apu Punchau, in the Ray \nBradbury story, \"The Man\", the Terence Stamp/Udo Kier film, \n_Revelation_, and even the comic _G vs E_ series had the agents trying \nto earn enough points to win a personal meeting with JC Himself." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at clueland.com\nComputational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana\n< http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F6231F1.80400@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2012-03-15T18:16:17+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F622767.9050906@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/15/2012 1:31 PM, James Wynn wrote:\nOn 3/15/2012 7:56 AM, Lee Berman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "But, heresy aside, can such views be considered as leaning toward \ngnostic?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I don't think so. Not in themselves.\n\nWolfe's off-hand proposition that the gods were \"real\" in some way but \nnot deserving of worship would only be directly tied to conventional \ngnosticism if he double-down and stated that the gods were also the \ndirect creators of the universe or the planet. Many Greek philosophers \nopined that their gods had been kings around whom cults had formed. \nPaul thought they were demons or fallen angels who paid no attention \nto the sacrifices offered to their images. Lewis seems to have toyed \nwith the idea that they were created powerful beings who, again, were \nunworthy of worship. Wolfe's comment demonstrates that he is a \nmythopoetist--that he believes the myths carry significant truths \n--spiritual truths-- just as electronic protocols carry data.\n\nFor more understanding of what he believes about mythology, study \nGreen's conversation with his psychiatrist in There Are Doors." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Interestingly, it has been proposed here that the Yesodis may have \ncreated their own whatever-it-is they live in or on. Does that count as \nworld-creation?\n\nElsewhere in the cycle, planets ruled by single beings are mentioned. \nThe \"giant\" of The Legend of XI Cygnus is one. But they are not \ndescribed as creators, though they do resemble archons in a way." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F6236B8.6050307@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2012-03-15T18:36:40+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F623158.2000003@clueland.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/15/2012 2:13 PM, Jeff Wilson wrote:\nOn 3/15/2012 9:39 AM, David Stockhoff wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The next is that the story can be interpreted as a kind of satire, even\na comedy. What could be more arrogant than rebuilding or summoning\nChrist? And yet what Christian would not desire, at some level, for that\nto happen? (Perhaps not a modern one, but certainly a medieval one.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "This is not the least common take on things, with people misguidedly \nseeking to possess or coerce their divine benefactor rather than \nfollow his example. It is repeated in UOTNS with Apu Punchau, in the \nRay Bradbury story, \"The Man\", the Terence Stamp/Udo Kier film, \n_Revelation_, and even the comic _G vs E_ series had the agents trying \nto earn enough points to win a personal meeting with JC Himself." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "And quarterbacks demanding a victory for their team. When Silk \nsacrificed to a god, he was always asking for something---but he was \nalways very respectful. Still, it is always a means of control---magic, \nessentially. Not a very advanced way of approaching the divine, and so \nthere it is in Apu Punchau's people worship of him. Kind of like \nMalrubius's \"attachment to the person of the monarch.\"" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1331837235.81672.YahooMailNeo@web121006.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2012-03-15T18:47:15+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You're right that God the character in PL doesn't seem very Wolfean...(but note also how different \"the Son\" and \"God\" are as characters in the poem.) But I'm thinking more of Milton's weird theological writings in _Christian Doctrine_ that often got him accused of \"heresy.\" Where it comes out in PL is more in the narratives of the creation and when Rafael describes the cosmos:\n\nFrom Book 5 (quickly stolen from a random site):\n\nO Adam, one Almightie is, from whom\nAll things proceed, and up to him return,[ 470 ]\nIf not deprav'd from good, created all\nSuch to perfection, one first matter all,\nIndu'd with various forms, various degrees\nOf substance, and in things that live, of life;\nBut more refin'd, more spiritous, and pure,[ 475 ]\nAs neerer to him plac't or neerer tending\nEach in thir several active Sphears assignd,\nTill body up to spirit work, in bounds\nProportiond to each kind. So from the root\nSprings lighter the green stalk, from thence the leaves[ 480 ]\nMore aerie, last the bright consummate floure\nSpirits odorous breathes: flours and thir fruit\nMans nourishment, by gradual scale sublim'd\nTo vital Spirits aspire, to animal,\nTo intellectual, give both life and sense,[ 485 ]\nFansie and understanding, whence the Soule\nReason receives, and reason is her being,\nDiscursive, or Intuitive; discourse\nIs oftest yours, the latter most is ours,\nDiffering but in degree, of kind the same.[ 490 ]\nWonder not then, what God for you saw good\nIf I refuse not, but convert, as you,\nTo proper substance; time may come when men\nWith Angels may participate, and find\nNo inconvenient Diet, nor too light Fare:[ 495 ]\nAnd from these corporal nutriments perhaps\nYour bodies may at last turn all to Spirit,\nImprov'd by tract of time, and wingd ascend\nEthereal, as wee, or may at choice\nHere or in Heav'nly Paradises dwell;[ 500 ]\nIf ye be found obedient, and retain\nUnalterably firm his love entire\nWhose progenie you are. Mean while enjoy\nYour fill what happiness this happie state\nCan comprehend, incapable of more.[ 505 ]" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-15T18:52:24+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes, said better than I did. However, now I'm wanting to qualify: let's\nnot de-fang the Wolfe. He has bite and we shouldn't begrudge him that. If\nsome writer clearly portrays Marxism or Secular Humanism in his or her\nwork, so many readers have a tendency to praise this as clever and wise and\nsomehow morally commendable. But when a Christian author does the same\nwith their faith, well, it had at least better not be too overt and should\ndefinitely be open-ended, etc. As I say, I do think Wolfe is marvelously\ngenerous and humble about 'sharing' his faith in his fiction (to reduce a\nvery complex artistry to a cliche - apologies), but I do think his overall\nbody of work is fairly clearly pointing in the direction of Catholicism\nbeing true and good and the 'way of salvation'. AND THAT'S FINE. (Mind,\nthat an 'evangelical' 'Protestant' is saying this - by some lights I should\nbe drawing my dagger.) It would have been just as fine if the work had\npointed in some other direction - atheism or Hinduism or whatever. An\nauthor is well within his or her 'artistic rights' to signal such\ntrajectories provided there is an integrity to the craft that shows a real\nrespect to the intelligence and diversity of readerly viewpoints.\n\nIt's ridiculous that I have to spell out 'permission' for Wolfe or any\nother writer this way - but I know for a fact that a whiff of any\n*definite* Christian belief in fiction turns many readers off - my creative\nwriting instructor just last night expressed her disdain for Narnia once\nshe discovered that the wonderful fantasy she'd read as a child turned out\nto be Christian in theme. If she had a beef with the artistry that would\nbe completely understandable, but her critique was couched only in terms of\nthe 'religious faith' the works evinced. In my opinion, that is not a good\nreason to dislike a work. I'll say it again, I love some atheist writing\nbecause it is so well written AND because their 'message' is powerfully\nwrought and challenging (NOT because there is no message at all or because\nit is barely discernible and I can easily ignore it if I want to) - and I\nabhor other atheist writing because the craft is poor and/or the 'message'\nis smug and/or brow-beating and/or lacks nuance and rich 'embodiment'. If\na work of art is an overt, beautiful, powerful statement of the artist's\nworldview and a deep challenge to my own - why should I shrink from that?\n Why should any of us?\n\nPLEASE (EVERYONE) LISTEN TO THIS IF NOTHING ELSE:\nI'm worried that some here can only stomach Wolfe if he can be kept\nambiguous about Catholic orthodoxy and that if it could ever be shown that\nHIS FICTION clearly 'favours' the Church, then they would be out. I'm\nbeginning to wonder if the need to keep that at bay fuels a lot of the\ndebate here. If so, I think it mistaken. We could easily accept that his\nwork points this way and the discussion and analysis would be FAR from done\nwith - so very far. If that's not the case and people are arguing for a\nnon-Catholic or Catholic-ambiguous reading of Wolfe because they genuinely\nsee the evidence pointing that way - and if they became convinced\notherwise, they would NOT then abandon the discussion - then that is, of\ncourse, very different. No one needs my stamp of approval for anything I\nrealise. I'm just airing this opinion.\n\n-DOJP\n\n2012/3/15 Ant?nio Pedro Marques " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I believe the difference is quite clear. While 'proselytising' authors\npresent their worldview as being superior - which is quite lame and\nirritating, since the reader has no control over events and can merely,\naware of it or not, watch them unfold in the way the author wants them to\nso they will support the author's views -, authors like Wolfe build upon\ntheir worldview to enrich their work, not to dictate its shape. I don't\nthink one needs to share Wolfe's beliefs, or even tolerate them, or even\nfind them interesting, in order to derive pleasure from Wolfe's work. Wolfe\nis not writing books to show Catholicism is great or offend non-Catholics,\nat all. Wolfe's stories do not unfold in certain ways so that catholic\nideals are vindicated and others put to shame. Rather I think his\nperspective on religion poses certain questions and provides certain\nanswers, and he tries to build on that in order to weave more questions and\na number of equally valid answers into his work. If you happen to share his\nbeliefs, you'll find that certain questions and answers resonate and lead\nyou to an increased appreciation of those same beliefs, but if you don't,\nyou're only losing because you can't enjoy resonance of something you don't\nhave, not because someone is locking you out or trying to influence you.\nI'm very ignorant of Lewis in order to know how he compares. I know\nTolkien well enough to have much the same opinion of him as I have of Wolfe\n- though I also see a lot of differences.\n\n\nNo dia 14/03/2012, ?s 22:36, Daniel Petersen <\ndanielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> escreveu:\n\nWell, I'm way behind in all the gritty details of this debate, but (that's\nwhere you all stop reading - ach, well)... Just because Wolfe is no Card\n(is that a pun?) doesn't mean he can't be a clearly spiritual (and, dare I\nsay it, 'evangelistic') writer in his own way. I, at least, have found a\nrichly rendered 'incarnational' and 'improvisational' sort of 'apologia'\nand 'euangelion' (yes, radically distinct in many important ways from the\nlikes of Chesterton or Lewis) *IN THE TEXTS* of the Solar Cycle, an\ninvitational and 'subversive' Christian orthodoxy and orthopraxy (be they\never so slyly idiosyncratic) that basically 'triumphs' over all the other\nsystems (e.g. from polytheism to gnosticism) in a theo-comedic 'underdog'\nsort of way (for those who wish to see it - Wolfe is no bully). [Akin to\nSt Paul's 'cosmic judo' sort of atonement theology in Colossians 2:15\n.]\n\nI believe that this being the case in no way shuts down or closes the\n'infinite play of meaning' that his narratives clearly intend to induce.\n But it does give that play certain contours and trajectories if we want to\nacknowledge them.\n\nI hope to write about it in more detail some day...\n\n-DOJP\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-15T19:16:08+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "James Wynn: Wolfe's off-hand proposition that the gods were \"real\" in \nsome way but not deserving of worship would only be directly tied to \nconventional gnosticism if he double-down and stated that the gods were \nalso the direct creators of the universe or the planet. Many Greek \nphilosophers opined that their gods had been kings around whom cults had \nformed. Paul thought they were demons or fallen angels.." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nI tend to agree. I wish Wolfe had gone a little further to explain exactly\nwhy he thinks such creator gods were not deserving of worship. I think that \nwould reveal his personal beliefs a bit more.\n \nBut I agree that more important here is the Sun Series text rather than his \nbeliefs. And I think he acknowledges both the principles of gods originating \nfrom ancient kings and gods from demons/fallen angels in the Sun Series.\n \nJames when you discuss the gnostic principle of creator gods who are not God, \nI am assuming (hopefully correctly) that you are acknowledging the attribution\nof demonic, perhaps satanic identity to the demiurge.\n \nWe know that the popular horned-goat image of Satan is derived from a demonization \nof Dionysus/Great God Pan. Pas, whose name is suggested as derived from Pan, is a \nclearly demiurgical figure in the creation and rule of the Whorl.\n \nBy tying The Outsider to Dionysus, I think Wolfe creates a similar connection of \nthe Outsider to Typhon/Pas as for Dionysus to Pan. (and we know from BotNS that\nTYphon has some satanic allusions to him).\n \nWe disagree on whether The Outsider is God/The Increate. But if you think The\nOutsider created Urth, I would agree. I also agree with Daniel (I think) that\nThe Outsider is presented as an unequivocally good god in Long/Short Sun. This\nmay be why I consider the possibility that Wolfe has gnostic leanings. If he did,\nand was portraying his beliefs accurately in the text, having a dark but benign, \nwrongly demonized, creator god who is very high but still below The Increate is \nwhat we would expect.\n \nWe aren't given any info on who created Urth but I think we are given a character \nwho embodies the principles of the Dionysian demiurge: The Green Man. Given the\nmythological figure's association with Dionysus/Pan I can't think that name of the\nBotNS character was chosen coincidentally. Some quotes I found about the mythological \nGreen Man:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "As though poised midway between heaven and hell, the Green Man is a god-demon. He is \na wholly masculine concept representing the spiritual power of the plant kingdom; there \nis no \"Green Woman\". He bridges the gap between the ancient gods and goddesses of forest \nand field, and the era of religious thought based on a more truly spiritual understanding\n?as distinct from merely a religious set of beliefs....The Green Man stands at the gateway \nof 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 \nboth ways at once. [or 4 ways, a la Quadrifons?]" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nhttp://www.undiscoveredworldspress.com/greenman.html \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F624001.7060902@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-15T19:16:17+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F6231F1.80400@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 3/15/2012 7:56 AM, Lee Berman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "But, heresy aside, can such views be considered as leaning toward \ngnostic?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 3/15/2012 1:31 PM, James Wynn wrote:\nI don't think so. Not in themselves.\n\nWolfe's off-hand proposition that the gods were \"real\" in some way \nbut not deserving of worship would only be directly tied to \nconventional gnosticism if he double-down and stated that the gods \nwere also the direct creators of the universe or the planet." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/15/2012 1:16 PM, David Stockhoff wrote:\nInterestingly, it has been proposed here that the Yesodis may have \ncreated their own whatever-it-is they live in or on. Does that count \nas world-creation?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Possibly. Like I said, the Sun Cycle is verrrry gnostic. That doesn't \nmake Wolfe gnostic. His belief that the gods are real does not make him \ngnostic even if he believed them to be benevolent or neutral rather than \ndemonic. Not even all gnostics agreed on that front." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Elsewhere in the cycle, planets ruled by single beings are mentioned. \nThe \"giant\" of The Legend of XI Cygnus is one. But they are not \ndescribed as creators, though they do resemble archons in a way." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The Wizard Knight world is superficially gnostic. However, the worlds do \nnot appear to have been created by any of the inhabitants. Humans do not \nappear to have created Aelfrice for instance. Presumably, the whole \nstructure was created by the Most High God. That doesn't really map to \nany gnosticism that I'm familiar with.\n\nJ." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-15T19:19:48+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hear, hear!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Daniel Petersen\n wrote:\nYes, said better than I did. ?However, now I'm wanting to qualify: ?let's\nnot de-fang the Wolfe. ?He has bite and we shouldn't begrudge him that. ?If\nsome writer clearly portrays Marxism or Secular Humanism in his or her work,\nso many readers have a tendency to praise this as clever and wise and\nsomehow morally commendable. ?But when a Christian author does the same with\ntheir faith, well, it had at least better not be too overt and should\ndefinitely be open-ended, etc. ?As I say, I do think Wolfe is marvelously\ngenerous and humble about 'sharing' his faith in his fiction (to reduce a\nvery complex artistry to a cliche - apologies), but I do think his overall\nbody of work is fairly clearly pointing in the direction of Catholicism\nbeing true and good and the 'way of salvation'. ?AND THAT'S FINE. ?(Mind,\nthat an 'evangelical' 'Protestant' is saying this - by some lights I should\nbe drawing my dagger.) ?It would have been just as fine if the work had\npointed in some other direction - atheism or Hinduism or whatever. ?An\nauthor is well within his or her 'artistic rights' to signal such\ntrajectories provided there is an integrity to the craft that shows a real\nrespect to the intelligence and diversity of readerly viewpoints.\n\nIt's ridiculous that I have to spell out 'permission' for Wolfe or any other\nwriter this way - but I know for a fact that a whiff of any *definite*\nChristian belief in fiction turns many readers off - my creative writing\ninstructor just last night expressed her disdain for Narnia once she\ndiscovered that the wonderful fantasy she'd read as a child turned out to be\nChristian in theme. ?If she had a beef with the artistry that would be\ncompletely understandable, but her critique was couched only in terms of the\n'religious faith' the works evinced. ?In my opinion, that is not a good\nreason to dislike a work. ?I'll say it again, I love some atheist writing\nbecause it is so well written AND because their 'message' is powerfully\nwrought and challenging (NOT because there is no message at all or because\nit is barely discernible and I can easily ignore it if I want to) - and I\nabhor other atheist writing because the craft is poor and/or the 'message'\nis smug and/or brow-beating and/or lacks nuance and rich 'embodiment'. “If a\nwork of art is an overt, beautiful, powerful statement of the artist's\nworldview and a deep challenge to my own - why should I shrink from that”\n“Why should any of us”\n\nPLEASE (EVERYONE) LISTEN TO THIS IF NOTHING ELSE:\nI'm worried that some here can only stomach Wolfe if he can be kept\nambiguous about Catholic orthodoxy and that if it could ever be shown that\nHIS FICTION clearly 'favours' the Church, then they would be out. ?I'm\nbeginning to wonder if the need to keep that at bay fuels a lot of the\ndebate here. ?If so, I think it mistaken. ?We could easily accept that his\nwork points this way and the discussion and analysis would be FAR from done\nwith - so very far. ?If that's not the case and people are arguing for a\nnon-Catholic or Catholic-ambiguous reading of Wolfe because they genuinely\nsee the evidence pointing that way - and if they became convinced otherwise,\nthey would NOT then abandon the discussion - then that is, of course, very\ndifferent. ?No one needs my stamp of approval for anything I realise. ?I'm\njust airing this opinion.\n\n-DOJP\n\n2012/3/15 Ant?nio Pedro Marques " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I believe the difference is quite clear. While 'proselytising' authors\npresent their worldview as being superior - which is quite lame and\nirritating, since the reader has no control over events and can merely,\naware of it or not, watch them unfold in the way the author wants them to so\nthey will support the author's views -, authors like Wolfe build upon their\nworldview to enrich their work, not to dictate its shape. I don't think one\nneeds to share Wolfe's beliefs, or even tolerate them, or even find them\ninteresting, in order to derive pleasure from Wolfe's work. Wolfe is not\nwriting books to show Catholicism is great or offend non-Catholics, at all.\nWolfe's stories do not unfold in certain ways so that catholic ideals are\nvindicated and others put to shame. Rather I think his perspective on\nreligion poses certain questions and provides certain answers, and he tries\nto build on that in order to weave more questions and a number of equally\nvalid answers into his work. If you happen to share his beliefs, you'll find\nthat certain questions and answers resonate and lead you to an increased\nappreciation of those same beliefs, but if you don't, you're only losing\nbecause you can't enjoy resonance of something you don't have, not because\nsomeone is locking you out or trying to influence you.\nI'm very ignorant of Lewis in order to know how he compares. I know\nTolkien well enough to have much the same opinion of him as I have of Wolfe\n- though I also see a lot of differences.\n\n\nNo dia 14/03/2012, ?s 22:36, Daniel Petersen\n escreveu:\n\nWell, I'm way behind in all the gritty details of this debate, but (that's\nwhere you all stop reading - ach, well)... Just because Wolfe is no Card (is\nthat a pun?) doesn't mean he can't be a clearly spiritual (and, dare I say\nit, 'evangelistic') writer in his own way. ?I, at least, have found a richly\nrendered 'incarnational' and 'improvisational' sort of 'apologia' and\n'euangelion' (yes, radically distinct in many important ways from the likes\nof Chesterton or Lewis) IN THE TEXTS of the Solar Cycle, an invitational and\n'subversive' Christian orthodoxy and orthopraxy (be they ever so slyly\nidiosyncratic) that basically 'triumphs' over all the other systems (e.g.\nfrom polytheism to gnosticism) in a theo-comedic 'underdog' sort of way (for\nthose who wish to see it - Wolfe is no bully). ?[Akin to St Paul's 'cosmic\njudo' sort of atonement theology in Colossians 2:15.]\n\nI believe that this being the case in no way shuts down or closes the\n'infinite play of meaning' that his narratives clearly intend to induce.\n?But it does give that play certain contours and trajectories if we want to\nacknowledge them.\n\nI hope to write about it in more detail some day...\n\n-DOJP\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F624269.8000802@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2012-03-15T19:26:33+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/15/2012 2:52 PM, Daniel Petersen wrote:\nIt's ridiculous that I have to spell out 'permission' for Wolfe or any \nother writer this way - but I know for a fact that a whiff of any \n*definite* Christian belief in fiction turns many readers off - my \ncreative writing instructor just last night expressed her disdain for \nNarnia once she discovered that the wonderful fantasy she'd read as a \nchild turned out to be Christian in theme. If she had a beef with the \nartistry that would be completely understandable, but her critique was \ncouched only in terms of the 'religious faith' the works evinced. In \nmy opinion, that is not a good reason to dislike a work. I'll say it \nagain, I love some atheist writing because it is so well written AND \nbecause their 'message' is powerfully wrought and challenging (NOT \nbecause there is no message at all or because it is barely discernible \nand I can easily ignore it if I want to) - and I abhor other atheist \nwriting because the craft is poor and/or the 'message' is smug and/or \nbrow-beating and/or lacks nuance and rich 'embodiment'. If a work of \nart is an overt, beautiful, powerful statement of the artist's \nworldview and a deep challenge to my own - why should I shrink from \nthat? Why should any of us?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think you're saying that \"pointing\" or expressing an ideology does not \nplay a zero-sum game with artistry. I agree, and Wolfe proves that.\n\nHowever, art involves asking honest questions. Historically, that has \nmeant questioning received wisdom of various kinds, and even today we \nfind it easier to swallow novels that tell us to watch out for \nilliberalism (Orwell; Atwood; Lessing; Le Guin) than the reverse. But I \ndon't think it's just an accident: either you came by your beliefs \nhonestly and you invite the reader into an attractive and rewarding game \nof questions with a level playing field, or you didn't and you don't.\n\nFailure in one is failure in the other. And so it is that we do not \ndiscuss the novels of L. Ron Hubbard. (That and pacing and dialogue and ...)\n\nNarnia disappointed me in the same way at the same age. This was partly \nbecause I already had developed an antipathy toward received wisdom of \nall kinds, which included my parents' Presbyterianism, and partly \nbecause once you \"get it,\" nearly all the books after the first (or \nfirst three at least) turn to cardboard. Only the first is consistently \ntold with a level of artistic ambiguity an adult can appreciate or tries \n(successfully) to capture the wonder of a child discovering literature \nand its intrinsic worth. By the time I reached the end of the last book, \nI was angry at Lewis for treating the dwarves the way he did simply \nbecause the rigid blueprint for his story needed scapegoats: if you have \na Last Judgment, you have to have some bodies to throw into the flaming \npit. Fuck that.\n\nSo maybe your creative writing teacher is actually judging Lewis on his \nartistic merits after all, not just her culturally-programmed aversion \nresponse. It may be difficult for her to tell the difference, herself. \nBut do you really think Lewis's main strengths (or intentions) were \nliterary? No more than Tolkien's, I think.\n\ni am quite sure Wolfe does not get high or condone the use of \nrecreational drugs. But I'd like to see him write a story that would \nmeet a drug czar's requirements for a suitable antidrug message! I would \nread it anyway, but it would never happen---and if it did, the joke \nwould be on them, I'm sure." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-15T19:30:07+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F624269.8000802@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Daniel Petersen: PLEASE (EVERYONE) LISTEN TO THIS IF NOTHING ELSE:\nI'm worried that some here can only stomach Wolfe if he can be kept\nambiguous about Catholic orthodoxy and that if it could ever be shown that\nHIS FICTION clearly 'favours' the Church, then they would be out. I'm\nbeginning to wonder if the need to keep that at bay fuels a lot of the\ndebate here." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nDaniel, there has been much militant atheism found in the media in the past\nfew years so I understand your concern. I don't think it is has a good basis\nwhen it comes to the Lupiverse though. Consider Peter Wright who, in Attending \nDaedalus, takes a deeply analytical view of BotNS which is entirely secular.\nDespite Wright's atheist leanings I don't think he is any less of a Wolfe fan\nwhen forced to acknowledge Wolfe's Christian influences on his writing. I\nsuspect the same is true for any militant atheists who happen to reside here.\n \nJust as a thought experiment, what would the reverse bring for you? What if\nthere was, say, a deathbed confession by Wolfe that all his work was meant to\nsubvert belief in Christ and promote worship of Satan or Dionysus. Would you be\nout? \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-15T19:40:22+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F624269.8000802@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "David Stockhoff wrote:\nNarnia disappointed me in the same way at the same age." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That is your experience, and I do not seek to devalue it. But..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "This was partly\nbecause I already had developed an antipathy toward received wisdom of all\nkinds, which included my parents' Presbyterianism," }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, you admit that you came in with a prejudice, so please consider\nthe following points in that light." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "and partly because once\nyou \"get it,\" nearly all the books after the first (or first three at least)\nturn to cardboard." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I disagree with this completely. As an adult, who understands\nmost-if-not-all of the \"allegorical\" (I use the scare quotes because\nLewis didn't think of it as an allegory; _I_ do) points of reference,\nI still find the books entrancing and not at all cardboard -- except,\nof course, for the covers, which _are_ cardboard, but that's another\npoint entirely :)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Only the first is consistently told with a level of\nartistic ambiguity an adult can appreciate or tries (successfully) to\ncapture the wonder of a child discovering literature and its intrinsic\nworth." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "H'mmm. To me, that's the least ambiguous of the bunch with the\npossible exception of \"The Last Battle.\" As a child reading the books,\nI didn't \"get it\" until the end of TLB, and when I did, the\nallegorical intent of TLTW&TW became immediately obvious: but I didn't\n\"get\" the theology/allegories of the books in-between until I was much\nolder." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "By the time I reached the end of the last book, I was angry at Lewis\nfor treating the dwarves the way he did simply because the rigid blueprint\nfor his story needed scapegoats: if you have a Last Judgment, you have to\nhave some bodies to throw into the flaming pit. Fuck that." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Again, I humbly disagree. Lewis makes it clear, both with the dwarfs\n(and Poggin the dwarf who escapes) and the Calormenes (and Emeth, the\nCalormene they meet in the Narnia-ly Paradise) that there is, for him,\nno predestined damnation, that it is a matter of the choices you make,\nnot what you happen to be born as. (Indeed, Emeth might be a\npredecessor/influence on Wolfe's \"good man in a bad religion.\")" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "So maybe your creative writing teacher is actually judging Lewis on his\nartistic merits after all, not just her culturally-programmed aversion\nresponse. It may be difficult for her to tell the difference, herself. But\ndo you really think Lewis's main strengths (or intentions) were literary? No\nmore than Tolkien's, I think." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think both were very literary writers whose least literary works\nhave been the most popular. Read Lewis's \"Till We Have Faces\" and come\nback and tell me his strengths were not literary (or that he was\nincapable of ambiguity). As for Tolkien I would point to his shorter\nworks like \"Leaf by Niggle\" and \"Smith of Wooton Major\" (the latter a\nhuge literary joke)." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-15T19:42:35+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Lee Berman wrote:\nJust as a thought experiment, what would the reverse bring for you? What if\nthere was, say, a deathbed confession by Wolfe that all his work was meant\nto subvert belief in Christ and promote worship of Satan or Dionysus. Would\nyou be out?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Not speaking for Daniel here, but I would be out. I can't be having\nwith that. I have no problem with open atheism, or even paganism, but\nat outright Satanism, or deliberate undermining of others' faith, I\ndraw the line." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Greg Bates", "address": "gregory.a.bates at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-15T19:44:55+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Disagree. What Wolfe does or does not believe doesn't change a single word\nof his writing, why should it change the way I feel about his writing?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nLee Berman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Just as a thought experiment, what would the reverse bring for you? What\nif\nthere was, say, a deathbed confession by Wolfe that all his work was\nmeant\nto subvert belief in Christ and promote worship of Satan or Dionysus." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Would\nyou be out?\n\n\nNot speaking for Daniel here, but I would be out. I can't be having\nwith that. I have no problem with open atheism, or even paganism, but\nat outright Satanism, or deliberate undermining of others' faith, I\ndraw the line.\n\n\n--\nDan'l Danehy-Oakes\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-15T19:47:45+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "David Stockhoff: By the time I reached the end of the last book, \nI was angry at Lewis.." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nFunny, I had a similar experience. Actually I never read Narnia (still\ntrue) because my first exposure to Lewis was around age 12 when I was\ngiven The Space Trilogy as a gift. Out Of The Silent Planet started out\nokay, but by the end I was (inexplicably) so angry with the author that\nI refused to read anything further by him. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-15T19:48:25+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "And you are entirely entitled to that opinon ;)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Greg Bates wrote:\nDisagree. What Wolfe does or does not believe doesn't change a single word\nof his writing, why should it change the way I feel about his writing?\n\nOn Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Lee Berman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Just as a thought experiment, what would the reverse bring for you? What\nif\nthere was, say, a deathbed confession by Wolfe that all his work was\nmeant\nto subvert belief in Christ and promote worship of Satan or Dionysus.\nWould\nyou be out?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Not speaking for Daniel here, but I would be out. I can't be having\nwith that. I have no problem with open atheism, or even paganism, but\nat outright Satanism, or deliberate undermining of others' faith, I\ndraw the line.\n\n\n--\nDan'l Danehy-Oakes\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Greg Bates", "address": "gregory.a.bates at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-15T19:49:28+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "And you as well :-)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nAnd you are entirely entitled to that opinon ;)\n\nOn Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Greg Bates \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Disagree. What Wolfe does or does not believe doesn't change a single\nword\nof his writing, why should it change the way I feel about his writing?\n\nOn Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Lee Berman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "Just as a thought experiment, what would the reverse bring for you?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "What\nif\nthere was, say, a deathbed confession by Wolfe that all his work was\nmeant\nto subvert belief in Christ and promote worship of Satan or Dionysus." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "Would\nyou be out?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Not speaking for Daniel here, but I would be out. I can't be having\nwith that. I have no problem with open atheism, or even paganism, but\nat outright Satanism, or deliberate undermining of others' faith, I\ndraw the line.\n\n\n--\nDan'l Danehy-Oakes\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F624EB6.4030803@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-15T20:19:02+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/15/2012 2:16 PM, Lee Berman wrote:\nJames when you discuss the gnostic principle of creator gods who are not God,\nI am assuming (hopefully correctly) that you are acknowledging the attribution\nof demonic, perhaps satanic identity to the demiurge.\n\nBy tying The Outsider to Dionysus, I think Wolfe creates a similar connection of\nthe Outsider to Typhon/Pas as for Dionysus to Pan. (and we know from BotNS that\nTYphon has some satanic allusions to him).\nWe know that the popular horned-goat image of Satan is derived from a demonization\nof Dionysus/Great God Pan. Pas, whose name is suggested as derived from Pan, is a\nclearly demiurgical figure in the creation and rule of the Whorl." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think we also disagree that The Short Sun conflates the Outsider with \nDionysus. I think it is more likely that it conflates Dionysus with the \ninhabitants of Green and with the Rajan (who is a Neighbor). It seems \nthere are other instances in which Wolfe associates Dionysus with Faeri.\n\nI know there is a connection to the inhumi generally and to Quetzal \nparticularly.\n\nSo to associate the Outsider with Dionysus as well would put of very \ndark spin on the Outsider indeed.\n\nI don't think Silk/Pas-as-Pan is to be *directly* identified with \nDionysus. Let's assume Wolfe is riffing on the Pan-to-Faun-to-Satyr \nassociation. Well, the satyrs are in the /company/ of Dionysus. This \nworks with the Silver Silk/Silent Silk as Silvanus and Silenius. Also, \nthe prophet Aristaeus (to whose life Silk tracks) was a devotee of \nOrpheus and later a /follower/ of Dionysus.\n\nAll this distinctly separates Silk/Pas/Typhon (at least in the \nLong/Short Sun) from the Outsider. There is a good chance that were are \nexpected to associate the natives of Green and Blue with Dionysus. And \nto see Silk as their ultimate \"companion\".\n\nJ." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F625444.8090002@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2012-03-15T20:42:44+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/15/2012 3:40 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nDavid Stockhoff wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Narnia disappointed me in the same way at the same age." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "That is your experience, and I do not seek to devalue it. But..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "This was partly\nbecause I already had developed an antipathy toward received wisdom of all\nkinds, which included my parents' Presbyterianism,\nWell, you admit that you came in with a prejudice, so please consider\nthe following points in that light." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hardly a prejudice! Something more and better than that, as I tried to \nsuggest previously. I don't read fiction to be told what I already have \nheard, or even already think I know, let alone to be subjected to \nargument by authority. The stress above is on \"received wisdom,\" not on \nPresbyterianism. I want to question along with the characters, not be \nled or lectured. Lewis did not lecture, but he does lead, and, in \nretrospect, he comes closer to lecturing than I had realized.\n\nMy disappointment was not, after all, that Lewis was a Christian. Who \ncares? I would be equally wary of books written by psychologists. The \ndisappointment lay in his didacticism and dishonesty. What I had been \nled to believe was one thing was revealed to be another. Whatever \naspects of the story I enjoyed were apparently not considered the main \npoint by its author. Worse, Narnia made me think I believed things I did \nnot believe. I may be overstating some of this (I sound like I am), but \nvery little of this kind of thing goes a long way." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "and partly because once\nyou \"get it,\" nearly all the books after the first (or first three at least)\nturn to cardboard." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I disagree with this completely. As an adult, who understands\nmost-if-not-all of the \"allegorical\" (I use the scare quotes because\nLewis didn't think of it as an allegory; _I_ do) points of reference,\nI still find the books entrancing and not at all cardboard -- except,\nof course, for the covers, which _are_ cardboard, but that's another\npoint entirely :)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "There were a few bright spots for me in the later books, but the \nrepetition of familiar events and crises is undeniable. One thing that \nwas done well was the aging of the characters, but the more Narnia got \nfleshed out, the more it became the same. That's what I mean by \"cardboard.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Only the first is consistently told with a level of\nartistic ambiguity an adult can appreciate or tries (successfully) to\ncapture the wonder of a child discovering literature and its intrinsic\nworth." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "H'mmm. To me, that's the least ambiguous of the bunch with the\npossible exception of \"The Last Battle.\" As a child reading the books,\nI didn't \"get it\" until the end of TLB, and when I did, the\nallegorical intent of TLTW&TW became immediately obvious: but I didn't\n\"get\" the theology/allegories of the books in-between until I was much\nolder." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I meant the ambiguity of reality---is the story \"real\" in some way or \nnot? Returning to Narnia as an established, independently existing \n\"world\" in the second and subsequent books was jarring, but I forced \nmyself to get over it. In other words, artistically speaking, they were \nsequels.\n\nPerhaps one essential difference between me and your teacher is that I \nnever liked Lewis that much anyway, especially after LWW. So she may \nhave felt a slightly different kind and degree of betrayal, perhaps more \nemotional." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "By the time I reached the end of the last book, I was angry at Lewis\nfor treating the dwarves the way he did simply because the rigid blueprint\nfor his story needed scapegoats: if you have a Last Judgment, you have to\nhave some bodies to throw into the flaming pit. Fuck that." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Again, I humbly disagree. Lewis makes it clear, both with the dwarfs\n(and Poggin the dwarf who escapes) and the Calormenes (and Emeth, the\nCalormene they meet in the Narnia-ly Paradise) that there is, for him,\nno predestined damnation, that it is a matter of the choices you make,\nnot what you happen to be born as. (Indeed, Emeth might be a\npredecessor/influence on Wolfe's \"good man in a bad religion.\")" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I wasn't thinking of choice vs predestination, but simply of creating \ncharacters to make them evil to fit a story that wouldn't work without \nbad people, as though Disney had stepped in and said, We need to set an \nexample of somebody for the sponsors. Again, it was jarring for me \nbecause something was foisted on the story that didn't seem to belong. \nAnd that's where I stopped with Lewis---after he had twice sacrificed \nhis art to condescend (in the modern sense) to children." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "So maybe your creative writing teacher is actually judging Lewis on his\nartistic merits after all, not just her culturally-programmed aversion\nresponse. It may be difficult for her to tell the difference, herself. But\ndo you really think Lewis's main strengths (or intentions) were literary? No\nmore than Tolkien's, I think." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think both were very literary writers whose least literary works\nhave been the most popular. Read Lewis's \"Till We Have Faces\" and come\nback and tell me his strengths were not literary (or that he was\nincapable of ambiguity). As for Tolkien I would point to his shorter\nworks like \"Leaf by Niggle\" and \"Smith of Wooton Major\" (the latter a\nhuge literary joke)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "But of course---perhaps I did not emphasize \"main\" enough. You are \ncertainly correct about Tolkien, and I can only accept your judgment of \nLewis." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F625558.7070406@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2012-03-15T20:47:20+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/15/2012 3:42 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nLee Berman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Just as a thought experiment, what would the reverse bring for you? What if\nthere was, say, a deathbed confession by Wolfe that all his work was meant\nto subvert belief in Christ and promote worship of Satan or Dionysus. Would\nyou be out?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Not speaking for Daniel here, but I would be out. I can't be having\nwith that. I have no problem with open atheism, or even paganism, but\nat outright Satanism, or deliberate undermining of others' faith, I\ndraw the line." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Interesting. Satanism is fine with me---Blake was a Satanist, in the \nonly meaningful sense. The other kind of satanism, popularized by the \nmedia, is just hippie orgiasty punctuated by drug overdose and \nunmedicated mental illness.\n\nNow, what about Cthulhuism? THERE's the real test!" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F625761.4090203@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2012-03-15T20:56:01+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I've never read that one. Funny though how at that age we are so \nsensitive to various kinds of perceived dishonesty (I assume it was \nsomething like that, or a kind of authorial strong-arming) but we can't \nidentify it.\n\nBilly Budd did that to me, especially when my English teacher insisted \nthat the captain had no choice but to execute an innocent sailor, \nbecause to do otherwise would be to invite mutiny. Death or the lash, \nthose were the choices for her." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 3/15/2012 3:47 PM, Lee Berman wrote:\nDavid Stockhoff: By the time I reached the end of the last book,\nI was angry at Lewis.." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Funny, I had a similar experience. Actually I never read Narnia (still\ntrue) because my first exposure to Lewis was around age 12 when I was\ngiven The Space Trilogy as a gift. Out Of The Silent Planet started out\nokay, but by the end I was (inexplicably) so angry with the author that\nI refused to read anything further by him. \t\t \t \t\t\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F625CEA.9040906@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-15T21:19:38+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F625444.8090002@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "David Stockhoff wrote:\nMy disappointment was not, after all, that Lewis was a Christian. Who\ncares? I would be equally wary of books written by psychologists. The\ndisappointment lay in his didacticism and dishonesty. What I had been\nled to believe was one thing was revealed to be another. Whatever\naspects of the story I enjoyed were apparently not considered the main\npoint by its author. Worse, Narnia made me think I believed things I did\nnot believe." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Regarding this and the hypothetical anti-christian Wolfe (a thought \nexepriment which I think is by no means new) what I have to say is that, \nlike all demons who turn to be unknowingly doing the work of the \nIncreate, the joke would be on the writer, not on the readers who \nenjoyed the book. *Provided* the readers enjoyed the book. If the \nreaders don't enjoy the book [other than fueling their own beliefs], \nthen the joke's both on them and the writer, whether the writer is \nhonest or dissimulate.\n\nIow, if the work is good, it stands, no matter what the author thinks. \nBut I think the odds are very small indeed that a covert author would \nproduce a really good book.\n\nIn this case, if you like Narnia, then you like it, and realising after \nthe fcat that it is propaganda should only turn you off, I think, if \nwhat had made you like it were all the propagandistic bits fitting in \nwith each other. Otherwise, it makes no sense to disown it. Of course, \nsince you say you never liked it all that much, you're just being coherent." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F6262B6.4080703@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2012-03-15T21:44:22+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F625CEA.9040906@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/15/2012 5:19 PM, Ant?nio Marques wrote:\nDavid Stockhoff wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "My disappointment was not, after all, that Lewis was a Christian. Who\ncares? I would be equally wary of books written by psychologists. The\ndisappointment lay in his didacticism and dishonesty. What I had been\nled to believe was one thing was revealed to be another. Whatever\naspects of the story I enjoyed were apparently not considered the main\npoint by its author. Worse, Narnia made me think I believed things I did\nnot believe." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Regarding this and the hypothetical anti-christian Wolfe (a thought \nexepriment which I think is by no means new) what I have to say is \nthat, like all demons who turn to be unknowingly doing the work of the \nIncreate, the joke would be on the writer, not on the readers who \nenjoyed the book. *Provided* the readers enjoyed the book. If the \nreaders don't enjoy the book [other than fueling their own beliefs], \nthen the joke's both on them and the writer, whether the writer is \nhonest or dissimulate.\n\nIow, if the work is good, it stands, no matter what the author thinks. \nBut I think the odds are very small indeed that a covert author would \nproduce a really good book.\n\nIn this case, if you like Narnia, then you like it, and realising \nafter the fcat that it is propaganda should only turn you off, I \nthink, if what had made you like it were all the propagandistic bits \nfitting in with each other. Otherwise, it makes no sense to disown it. \nOf course, since you say you never liked it all that much, you're just \nbeing coherent." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Actually, I think a covert author is quite capable of producing a really \ngood book, IF the necessity for covertness is externally imposed.\n\nAfter that, I'm not sure I'm following you, Antonio. I think my logic \nmight not quite fit into the box you have made for it. What I liked \nabout Narnia was probably not in fact all the \"bits\" fitting together, \nwhich I would identify most prominently as the personal, moral choices \ncharacters had to make. Those were uninteresting and contrived, and, I \nfelt, increasingly so.\n\nIf I felt betrayed, it was not because I fell in love with the Narnia of \nthe books after LWW, but because I gave Lewis the benefit of the doubt \nafter having betrayed the first time, after LWW, and obtained some \npartial enjoyment as a result. The discovery of propaganda did not come \nafter the fact, but in the course of reading. I stuck it out \nnevertheless. TLB revealed what was, to me, the mendacity of Lewis's \nproject." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F626306.8070209@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-15T21:45:42+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Daniel Petersen wrote:\nIf some writer clearly portrays Marxism or Secular Humanism in his or\n her work, so many readers have a tendency to praise this as clever\nand wise and somehow morally commendable. But when a Christian\nauthor does the same with their faith, well, it had at least better\nnot be too overt and should definitely be open-ended, etc." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "For me, the question is a different one. I see three patterns when it \ncomes to an author's beliefs:\n\n- Preaching to the choir: honest but doesn't interest me, even when I'm \npart of the choir. I hear there are a number of christian writers who do it.\n\n- Covert preaching: dishonest *and* unintereresting because it's \ngenerally nearisghted and sterile. That's what I usually see 'secular' \nauthors doing.\n\n- Faith/belief/worldview-inspired (emotionally and intellectually): \nthat's where authors like Wolfe stand for me. Not any secularist that I \ncan think of - well, I like Eco. Borges claimed to be an unbeliever, but \nhe was certainly not a secularist.\n\n\nSo it's not a matter of legitimacy to preach or not. I interpret the \nabove as your saying 2 is considered OK by the establishment while 1 is \nonly barely tolerated if it is in fact 3." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F626576.2030600@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-15T21:56:06+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F6262B6.4080703@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "David Stockhoff wrote:\nOn 3/15/2012 5:19 PM, Ant?nio Marques wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "David Stockhoff wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "My disappointment was not, after all, that Lewis was a Christian. Who\ncares? I would be equally wary of books written by psychologists. The\ndisappointment lay in his didacticism and dishonesty. What I had been\nled to believe was one thing was revealed to be another. Whatever\naspects of the story I enjoyed were apparently not considered the main\npoint by its author. Worse, Narnia made me think I believed things I did\nnot believe." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Regarding this and the hypothetical anti-christian Wolfe (a thought\nexepriment which I think is by no means new) what I have to say is\nthat, like all demons who turn to be unknowingly doing the work of the\nIncreate, the joke would be on the writer, not on the readers who\nenjoyed the book. *Provided* the readers enjoyed the book. If the\nreaders don't enjoy the book [other than fueling their own beliefs],\nthen the joke's both on them and the writer, whether the writer is\nhonest or dissimulate.\n\nIow, if the work is good, it stands, no matter what the author thinks.\nBut I think the odds are very small indeed that a covert author would\nproduce a really good book.\n\nIn this case, if you like Narnia, then you like it, and realising\nafter the fcat that it is propaganda should only turn you off, I\nthink, if what had made you like it were all the propagandistic bits\nfitting in with each other. Otherwise, it makes no sense to disown it.\nOf course, since you say you never liked it all that much, you're just\nbeing coherent." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Actually, I think a covert author is quite capable of producing a really\ngood book, IF the necessity for covertness is externally imposed." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That part of my argument should have used 'dishonest' rather than 'covert'." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "After that, I'm not sure I'm following you, Antonio. I think my logic\nmight not quite fit into the box you have made for it." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Gee, that could be because I made no box for it. I made a box for a \nspecific case. If it isn't yours, it isn't. Oh - I see I used the \n'impersonal you' again. Sorry, even after a number of episodes where it \nseems to have caused confusion, it seems it's crept into my english and \nI don't even notice when I shouldn't be using it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "What I liked\nabout Narnia was probably not in fact all the \"bits\" fitting together,\nwhich I would identify most prominently as the personal, moral choices\ncharacters had to make. Those were uninteresting and contrived, and, I\nfelt, increasingly so." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Correct. What I said above is that someone who didn't like that aspect \nof it from the start shouldn't be feeling betrayed by it. Someone who \ndid, could feel betrayed, but should also think 'I should have known \nbetter'." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "If I felt betrayed, it was not because I fell in love with the Narnia of\nthe books after LWW, but because I gave Lewis the benefit of the doubt\nafter having betrayed the first time, after LWW, and obtained some\npartial enjoyment as a result. The discovery of propaganda did not come\nafter the fact, but in the course of reading. I stuck it out\nnevertheless. TLB revealed what was, to me, the mendacity of Lewis's\nproject." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Would you say you felt more betrayed by Lewis than by Narnia itself? Or \ndid the creature turn out to be unwelcome itself? Or - did the final \nbook do away with the 'illusion of depth' you had managed to keep \nregarding the bits you liked?" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F626645.5000609@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-15T21:59:33+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F626306.8070209@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Ant?nio Marques wrote:\nDaniel Petersen wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "If some writer clearly portrays Marxism or Secular Humanism in his or\nher work, so many readers have a tendency to praise this as clever\nand wise and somehow morally commendable. But when a Christian\nauthor does the same with their faith, well, it had at least better\nnot be too overt and should definitely be open-ended, etc." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "For me, the question is a different one. I see three patterns when it\ncomes to an author's beliefs:\n\n- Preaching to the choir: honest but doesn't interest me, even when I'm\npart of the choir. I hear there are a number of christian writers who do\nit.\n\n- Covert preaching: dishonest *and* unintereresting because it's\ngenerally nearisghted and sterile. That's what I usually see 'secular'\nauthors doing.\n\n- Faith/belief/worldview-inspired (emotionally and intellectually):\nthat's where authors like Wolfe stand for me. Not any secularist that I\ncan think of - well, I like Eco. Borges claimed to be an unbeliever, but\nhe was certainly not a secularist.\n\n\nSo it's not a matter of legitimacy to preach or not. I interpret the\nabove as your saying 2 is considered OK by the establishment while 1 is\nonly barely tolerated if it is in fact 3." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Correction: 2 is only OK if it's secularist, otherwise it's shameful, \nand 1 is only illegitimate if it's christian, otherwise it's at least \npassable." } ] }, { "message_id": "<12AA9CFAA3E7475EA584103C522FE938@Rover>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2012-03-15T22:06:40+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F625444.8090002@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: David Stockhoff " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/15/2012 3:40 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nDavid Stockhoff wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Narnia disappointed me in the same way at the same age." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "That is your experience, and I do not seek to devalue it. But..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "This was partly\nbecause I already had developed an antipathy toward received wisdom of all\nkinds, which included my parents' Presbyterianism," }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "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.\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F627052.4000806@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-15T22:42:26+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Let me put this way:\nI think Rose/Marble/Molybdenum and Silk/Horn/Rajan *rationalize* the \nTrinity. They examine how a person can be three-in-one. These are good \ninstances for my current purpose because the very fact that these \npersons are three is in dispute. So, it is not a primary goal in these \nstories for Wolfe to *prove* that the Trinity is reasonable. The \nMainframe vs possession versions of Kypris nicely demonstrate the \nincarnation. It's why, I think, Wolfe spends so much time explaining the \nmechanics of how it works. But Kypris is not intended to be Wolfe's \n\"Jesus\". Nor is the Short Sun Magnesia or the Rajan \"God\".\n\nWolfe does not map to his own theology close enough to his worlds so \nthat you could re-build Christianity or Catholicism from his writings. \nThe allusions only work as far as they go. No farther. So I seriously \ndoubt Wolfe cares about things \"well would Wolfe really create a world \nin which the Catholic Church had become a figure of only etymology and \nmyth\"? Sure he would.\nJ." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/15/2012 1:52 PM, Daniel Petersen wrote:\nYes, said better than I did. However, now I'm wanting to qualify: \n let's not de-fang the Wolfe. He has bite and we shouldn't begrudge \nhim that. If some writer clearly portrays Marxism or Secular Humanism \nin his or her work, so many readers have a tendency to praise this as \nclever and wise and somehow morally commendable. But when a Christian \nauthor does the same with their faith, well, it had at least better \nnot be too overt and should definitely be open-ended, etc. As I say, \nI do think Wolfe is marvelously generous and humble about 'sharing' \nhis faith in his fiction (to reduce a very complex artistry to a \ncliche - apologies), but I do think his overall body of work is fairly \nclearly pointing in the direction of Catholicism being true and good \nand the 'way of salvation'. AND THAT'S FINE. (Mind, that an \n'evangelical' 'Protestant' is saying this - by some lights I should be \ndrawing my dagger.) It would have been just as fine if the work had \npointed in some other direction - atheism or Hinduism or whatever. An \nauthor is well within his or her 'artistic rights' to signal such \ntrajectories provided there is an integrity to the craft that shows a \nreal respect to the intelligence and diversity of readerly viewpoints.\n\nIt's ridiculous that I have to spell out 'permission' for Wolfe or any \nother writer this way - but I know for a fact that a whiff of any \n*definite* Christian belief in fiction turns many readers off - my \ncreative writing instructor just last night expressed her disdain for \nNarnia once she discovered that the wonderful fantasy she'd read as a \nchild turned out to be Christian in theme. If she had a beef with the \nartistry that would be completely understandable, but her critique was \ncouched only in terms of the 'religious faith' the works evinced. In \nmy opinion, that is not a good reason to dislike a work. I'll say it \nagain, I love some atheist writing because it is so well written AND \nbecause their 'message' is powerfully wrought and challenging (NOT \nbecause there is no message at all or because it is barely discernible \nand I can easily ignore it if I want to) - and I abhor other atheist \nwriting because the craft is poor and/or the 'message' is smug and/or \nbrow-beating and/or lacks nuance and rich 'embodiment'. If a work of \nart is an overt, beautiful, powerful statement of the artist's \nworldview and a deep challenge to my own - why should I shrink from \nthat? Why should any of us?\n\nPLEASE (EVERYONE) LISTEN TO THIS IF NOTHING ELSE:\nI'm worried that some here can only stomach Wolfe if he can be kept \nambiguous about Catholic orthodoxy and that if it could ever be shown \nthat HIS FICTION clearly 'favours' the Church, then they would be out. \n I'm beginning to wonder if the need to keep that at bay fuels a lot \nof the debate here. If so, I think it mistaken. We could easily \naccept that his work points this way and the discussion and analysis \nwould be FAR from done with - so very far. If that's not the case and \npeople are arguing for a non-Catholic or Catholic-ambiguous reading of \nWolfe because they genuinely see the evidence pointing that way - and \nif they became convinced otherwise, they would NOT then abandon the \ndiscussion - then that is, of course, very different. No one needs my \nstamp of approval for anything I realise. I'm just airing this opinion.\n\n-DOJP\n\n2012/3/15 Ant?nio Pedro Marques >\n\n I believe the difference is quite clear. While 'proselytising'\n authors present their worldview as being superior - which is quite\n lame and irritating, since the reader has no control over events\n and can merely, aware of it or not, watch them unfold in the way\n the author wants them to so they will support the author's views\n -, authors like Wolfe build upon their worldview to enrich their\n work, not to dictate its shape. I don't think one needs to share\n Wolfe's beliefs, or even tolerate them, or even find them\n interesting, in order to derive pleasure from Wolfe's work. Wolfe\n is not writing books to show Catholicism is great or offend\n non-Catholics, at all. Wolfe's stories do not unfold in certain\n ways so that catholic ideals are vindicated and others put to\n shame. Rather I think his perspective on religion poses certain\n questions and provides certain answers, and he tries to build on\n that in order to weave more questions and a number of equally\n valid answers into his work. If you happen to share his beliefs,\n you'll find that certain questions and answers resonate and lead\n you to an increased appreciation of those same beliefs, but if you\n don't, you're only losing because you can't enjoy resonance of\n something you don't have, not because someone is locking you out\n or trying to influence you.\n I'm very ignorant of Lewis in order to know how he compares. I\n know Tolkien well enough to have much the same opinion of him as I\n have of Wolfe - though I also see a lot of differences.\n\n\n No dia 14/03/2012, ?s 22:36, Daniel Petersen\n > escreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": " Well, I'm way behind in all the gritty details of this debate,\n but (that's where you all stop reading - ach, well)... Just\n because Wolfe is no Card (is that a pun?) doesn't mean he can't\n be a clearly spiritual (and, dare I say it, 'evangelistic')\n writer in his own way. I, at least, have found a richly rendered\n 'incarnational' and 'improvisational' sort of 'apologia' and\n 'euangelion' (yes, radically distinct in many important ways from\n the likes of Chesterton or Lewis) */IN THE TEXTS/* of the Solar\n Cycle, an invitational and 'subversive' Christian orthodoxy and\n orthopraxy (be they ever so slyly idiosyncratic) that basically\n 'triumphs' over all the other systems (e.g. from polytheism to\n gnosticism) in a theo-comedic 'underdog' sort of way (for those\n who wish to see it - Wolfe is no bully). [Akin to St Paul's\n 'cosmic judo' sort of atonement theology in Colossians 2:15\n .]\n\n\n I believe that this being the case in no way shuts down or closes\n the 'infinite play of meaning' that his narratives clearly intend\n to induce. But it does give that play certain contours and\n trajectories if we want to acknowledge them.\n\n I hope to write about it in more detail some day...\n\n -DOJP" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " _______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F6279D2.8000306@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-15T23:22:58+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<12AA9CFAA3E7475EA584103C522FE938@Rover>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "For the record, I never had any problem seeing the allegorical parts in \nLWW or the Silver Chair (the most allegorical of all the stories). TLB \nis not even allegorical. It's merely eschatological. Given who Aslan was \nrevealed to be in \"The Magician's Nephew\", it is inevitable that he \nwould play the role he did at the end of the the Narnian world.\n\nIf one sees materialism as an \"oppositional identity\" to Christianity \n(and all young materialist in the West do because that is almost always \ntheir only counter-example), then you are likely to feel chaffing at \nAslan's role in TLB. But Aslan's plays the same role in TLB as he does \nin ALL the other book. He shows up at the end to sort things out and \nsends the characters on their way. But only if one associates \nEnd-of-the-World stories SOLELY with Christianity would one suddenly \nrealize in TLB that Aslan is Jesus.\n\nBut there is sooo much more to Narnia than the Christian allegory. \nAlmost all of it is, as Lewis called it, a stew with lots of familiar \nflavors rather than a lock-and-key allegory. It's just that there are a \nfew clumps of beefy allegory in there as well.\n\nIn fact, being young and recognizing the allegories in the story made \n\"The Last Battle\" quite confusing for me, I think. Because Lewis has a \nvery idiosyncratic theology (it certainly wouldn't jive with \nPresbyterianism). If, because of one's youth, he is unaware that there \nare so many subtle shades of Christian belief, he will surely have a WTH \nreaction. And I did.\n\nSo TLB would be better if it were read by an older, more worldly person \nwho can both recognize how different Aslan is from our Standard Jesus \nand is willing to accept that that is okay. Or someone who has had the \ntime between the first book to the last to familiarize himself with some \nof Lewis's other writers (\"The Great Divorce\", \"Til We Have Faces\", \n\"Pilgrims Regress\")\n\nJ." } ] }, { "message_id": "<1331853969.63674.YahooMailNeo@web121005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2012-03-15T23:26:09+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Greg wrote:\nDisagree. What Wolfe does or does not believe doesn't change a single \nword of his writing, why should it change the way I feel about his \nwriting?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I tend to agree with you. After all, an author can say what he attempted to do. He can't always claim that he was successful or in as much control as he thought.\n\n\nThat said, I do think that Wolfe is something of a special case because of the \"hidden\" or implicit qualities of so much of his writing. If we were just dealing with interpretive-level meaning, then absolutely. After all, Milton came up earlier: people love PL because they think it's a profoundly Christian work AND because they think it's secretly subversive of that. And they both have good reason for their (incompatible) interpretations.\n\n\nBut with Wolfe, some of the things you have to figure out aren't just interpretive. Discerning kinds of puzzles or attempting to figure out what counts as a detail with extra significance in terms of the plot or story is a matter of \"reading correctly\" rather than interpreting. (Dorcas as Sev's grandmother being the premier example.) If Wolfe said on his deathbed that it was all a clever front for a revival of Confucianism, it would affect more than just my interpretation, but also how I chose, decoded, etc., what actually happened in the story itself.\n\nSomething of a fine and debatable line, but there it is. (It's also a line that I think we've all been guilty of crossing at one time or other.)\n\n\n\n\n \n\nDisagree. 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?\n\n\nOn Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Lee Berman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Just as a thought experiment, what would the reverse bring for you? What if\nthere was, say, a deathbed confession by Wolfe that all his work was meant\nto subvert belief in Christ and promote worship of Satan or Dionysus. Would\nyou be out?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Not speaking for Daniel here, but I would be out. I can't be having\nwith that. I have no problem with open atheism, or even paganism, but\nat outright Satanism, or deliberate undermining of others' faith, I\ndraw the line.\n\n\n--\nDan'l Danehy-Oakes\n\n_______________________________________________\nUrth Mailing List\nTo post, write urth at urth.net\nSubscription/information: http://www.urth.net" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Matthew Weber", "address": "palaeologos at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-15T23:26:50+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F6279D2.8000306@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 4:22 PM, James Wynn wrote:\nFor the record, I never had any problem seeing the allegorical parts in\nLWW or the Silver Chair (the most allegorical of all the stories). TLB is\nnot even allegorical. It's merely eschatological. Given who Aslan was\nrevealed to be in \"The Magician's Nephew\", it is inevitable that he would\nplay the role he did at the end of the the Narnian world.\n\nIf one sees materialism as an \"oppositional identity\" to Christianity (and\nall young materialist in the West do because that is almost always their\nonly counter-example), then you are likely to feel chaffing at Aslan's role\nin TLB. But Aslan's plays the same role in TLB as he does in ALL the other\nbook. He shows up at the end to sort things out and sends the characters on\ntheir way. But only if one associates End-of-the-World stories SOLELY with\nChristianity would one suddenly realize in TLB that Aslan is Jesus.\n\nBut there is sooo much more to Narnia than the Christian allegory. Almost\nall of it is, as Lewis called it, a stew with lots of familiar flavors\nrather than a lock-and-key allegory. It's just that there are a few clumps\nof beefy allegory in there as well.\n\nIn fact, being young and recognizing the allegories in the story made \"The\nLast Battle\" quite confusing for me, I think. Because Lewis has a very\nidiosyncratic theology (it certainly wouldn't jive with Presbyterianism).\n If, because of one's youth, he is unaware that there are so many subtle\nshades of Christian belief, he will surely have a WTH reaction. And I did.\n\nSo TLB would be better if it were read by an older, more worldly person\nwho can both recognize how different Aslan is from our Standard Jesus and\nis willing to accept that that is okay. Or someone who has had the time\nbetween the first book to the last to familiarize himself with some of\nLewis's other writers (\"The Great Divorce\", \"Til We Have Faces\", \"Pilgrims\nRegress\")\n\nJ.\n\n______________________________**_________________" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Lewis' theology, idiosyncratic? I'd characterize it as broadly catholic\nand orthodox, though I can see where the hyper-Reformed might have problems\nwith it." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Matt +\n\nIs he, therefore, who goeth groveling upon his face, better directed than\nhe who walketh upright in a straight way?\n The Koran, Chapter 67, verse 22" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F627D41.5070802@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2012-03-15T23:37:37+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F626576.2030600@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/15/2012 5:56 PM, Ant?nio Marques wrote:\nDavid Stockhoff wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 3/15/2012 5:19 PM, Ant?nio Marques wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "David Stockhoff wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "My disappointment was not, after all, that Lewis was a Christian. Who\ncares? I would be equally wary of books written by psychologists. The\ndisappointment lay in his didacticism and dishonesty. What I had been\nled to believe was one thing was revealed to be another. Whatever\naspects of the story I enjoyed were apparently not considered the main\npoint by its author. Worse, Narnia made me think I believed things \nI did\nnot believe." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Regarding this and the hypothetical anti-christian Wolfe (a thought\nexepriment which I think is by no means new) what I have to say is\nthat, like all demons who turn to be unknowingly doing the work of the\nIncreate, the joke would be on the writer, not on the readers who\nenjoyed the book. *Provided* the readers enjoyed the book. If the\nreaders don't enjoy the book [other than fueling their own beliefs],\nthen the joke's both on them and the writer, whether the writer is\nhonest or dissimulate.\n\nIow, if the work is good, it stands, no matter what the author thinks.\nBut I think the odds are very small indeed that a covert author would\nproduce a really good book.\n\nIn this case, if you like Narnia, then you like it, and realising\nafter the fcat that it is propaganda should only turn you off, I\nthink, if what had made you like it were all the propagandistic bits\nfitting in with each other. Otherwise, it makes no sense to disown it.\nOf course, since you say you never liked it all that much, you're just\nbeing coherent." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Actually, I think a covert author is quite capable of producing a really\ngood book, IF the necessity for covertness is externally imposed." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "That part of my argument should have used 'dishonest' rather than \n'covert'." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "After that, I'm not sure I'm following you, Antonio. I think my logic\nmight not quite fit into the box you have made for it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gee, that could be because I made no box for it. I made a box for a \nspecific case. If it isn't yours, it isn't. Oh - I see I used the \n'impersonal you' again. Sorry, even after a number of episodes where \nit seems to have caused confusion, it seems it's crept into my english \nand I don't even notice when I shouldn't be using it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "What I liked\nabout Narnia was probably not in fact all the \"bits\" fitting together,\nwhich I would identify most prominently as the personal, moral choices\ncharacters had to make. Those were uninteresting and contrived, and, I\nfelt, increasingly so." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Correct. What I said above is that someone who didn't like that aspect \nof it from the start shouldn't be feeling betrayed by it. Someone who \ndid, could feel betrayed, but should also think 'I should have known \nbetter'." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "If I felt betrayed, it was not because I fell in love with the Narnia of\nthe books after LWW, but because I gave Lewis the benefit of the doubt\nafter having betrayed the first time, after LWW, and obtained some\npartial enjoyment as a result. The discovery of propaganda did not come\nafter the fact, but in the course of reading. I stuck it out\nnevertheless. TLB revealed what was, to me, the mendacity of Lewis's\nproject." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Would you say you felt more betrayed by Lewis than by Narnia itself? \nOr did the creature turn out to be unwelcome itself? Or - did the \nfinal book do away with the 'illusion of depth' you had managed to \nkeep regarding the bits you liked?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This is clearer!\n\nI think \"I should have known better\" is probably a high standard for a \n9-year-old, but it is probably closer to what I experienced. \nBurned---tricked, in any case. By Lewis himself---and yes, there was an \nillusion of depth that vanished, replaced by a perception of cynicism \nthat may not have been entirely fair---but what did I know.\n\nYou do invest some time in a work of that length whether you embrace it \nwholly or not, and you accept the characters as what they seem intended \nto be. You cut the author some slack, and become comfortable with him \nand his characters, and keep going with the implicit understanding that \nthere will be a payoff. So there is a trust issue whether you fall head \nover heels or not.\n\nIn any case, Narnia stands, for me, as a prime example of what results \nwhen an author prioritizes message over medium. I can understand how \nsomeone who has no issue with \"bible stories\" will not mind being told \nwhat seems to be a really cool bible story. But I am not sure how one \ncould enjoy both bible stories and any kind of ambiguity or \nopen-endedness---I can only assume that if you enjoy bible stories, \neither you love being told what to think or you have only read good ones \nand have discovered something within them that was not revealed to me.\n\nFor myself---well, I remember being angry with my teacher in second \ngrade because we had already covered Thanksgiving in first grade, and I \ndidn't want to hear about turkeys and Pilgrims again. So I'm sure I'm an \noutlier in terms of my tolerance for flat repetition." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F627D96.6090405@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2012-03-15T23:39:02+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<12AA9CFAA3E7475EA584103C522FE938@Rover>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/15/2012 6:06 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:\n*From:* David Stockhoff \nOn 3/15/2012 3:40 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "David Stockhoff wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Narnia disappointed me in the same way at the same age." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "That is your experience, and I do not seek to devalue it. But..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "This was partly\nbecause I already had developed an antipathy toward received wisdom \nof all\nkinds, which included my parents' Presbyterianism,\nI remember being cheesed off by The Last Battle. I think it was \nlargely that the magical world and characters turned out to be cogs in \nthe scheme of the author. There was an element of antipathy towards \nreceived wisdom there too, I suspect." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "- Gerry Quinn" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Bingo. Hey, we agree!" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1331855173.81013.YahooMailNeo@web121002.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2012-03-15T23:46:13+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "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.\n\nBut 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.\n\n\n\n \nHear, hear!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Daniel Petersen\n wrote:\nYes, said better than I did. ?However, now I'm wanting to qualify: ?let's\nnot de-fang the Wolfe. ?He has bite and we shouldn't begrudge him that. ?If\nsome writer clearly portrays Marxism or Secular Humanism in his or her work,\nso many readers have a tendency to praise this as clever and wise and\nsomehow morally commendable. ?But when a Christian author does the same with\ntheir faith, well, it had at least better not be too overt and should\ndefinitely be open-ended, etc. ?As I say, I do think Wolfe is marvelously\ngenerous and humble about 'sharing' his faith in his fiction (to reduce a\nvery complex artistry to a cliche - apologies), but I do think his overall\nbody of work is fairly clearly pointing in the direction of Catholicism\nbeing true and good and the 'way of salvation'. ?AND THAT'S FINE. ?(Mind,\nthat an 'evangelical' 'Protestant' is saying this - by some lights I should\nbe drawing my dagger.) ?It would have been just as fine if the work had\npointed in some other direction - atheism or Hinduism or whatever. ?An\nauthor is well within his or her 'artistic rights' to signal such\ntrajectories provided there is an integrity to the craft that shows a real\nrespect to the intelligence and diversity of readerly viewpoints.\n\nIt's ridiculous that I have to spell out 'permission' for Wolfe or any other\nwriter this way - but I know for a fact that a whiff of any *definite*\nChristian belief in fiction turns many readers off - my creative writing\ninstructor just last night expressed her disdain for Narnia once she\ndiscovered that the wonderful fantasy she'd read as a child turned out to be\nChristian in theme. ?If she had a beef with the artistry that would be\ncompletely understandable, but her critique was couched only in terms of the\n'religious faith' the works evinced. ?In my opinion, that is not a good\nreason to dislike a work. ?I'll say it again, I love some atheist writing\nbecause it is so well written AND because their 'message' is powerfully\nwrought and challenging (NOT because there is no message at all or because\nit is barely discernible and I can easily ignore it if I want to) - and I\nabhor other atheist writing because the craft is poor and/or the 'message'\nis smug and/or brow-beating and/or lacks nuance and rich 'embodiment'. “If a\nwork of art is an overt, beautiful, powerful statement of the artist's\nworldview and a deep challenge to my own - why should I shrink from that”\n“Why should any of us”\n\nPLEASE (EVERYONE) LISTEN TO THIS IF NOTHING ELSE:\nI'm worried that some here can only stomach Wolfe if he can be kept\nambiguous about Catholic orthodoxy and that if it could ever be shown that\nHIS FICTION clearly 'favours' the Church, then they would be out. ?I'm\nbeginning to wonder if the need to keep that at bay fuels a lot of the\ndebate here. ?If so, I think it mistaken. ?We could easily accept that his\nwork points this way and the discussion and analysis would be FAR from done\nwith - so very far. ?If that's not the case and people are arguing for a\nnon-Catholic or Catholic-ambiguous reading of Wolfe because they genuinely\nsee the evidence pointing that way - and if they became convinced otherwise,\nthey would NOT then abandon the discussion - then that is, of course, very\ndifferent. ?No one needs my stamp of approval for anything I realise. ?I'm\njust airing this opinion.\n\n-DOJP\n\n2012/3/15 Ant?nio Pedro Marques " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I believe the difference is quite clear. While 'proselytising' authors\npresent their worldview as being superior - which is quite lame and\nirritating, since the reader has no control over events and can merely,\naware of it or not, watch them unfold in the way the author wants them to so\nthey will support the author's views -, authors like Wolfe build upon their\nworldview to enrich their work, not to dictate its shape. I don't think one\nneeds to share Wolfe's beliefs, or even tolerate them, or even find them\ninteresting, in order to derive pleasure from Wolfe's work. Wolfe is not\nwriting books to show Catholicism is great or offend non-Catholics, at all.\nWolfe's stories do not unfold in certain ways so that catholic ideals are\nvindicated and others put to shame. Rather I think his perspective on\nreligion poses certain questions and provides certain answers, and he tries\nto build on that in order to weave more questions and a number of equally\nvalid answers into his work. If you happen to share his beliefs, you'll find\nthat certain questions and answers resonate and lead you to an increased\nappreciation of those same beliefs, but if you don't, you're only losing\nbecause you can't enjoy resonance of something you don't have, not because\nsomeone is locking you out or trying to influence you.\nI'm very ignorant of Lewis in order to know how he compares. I know\nTolkien well enough to have much the same opinion of him as I have of Wolfe\n- though I also see a lot of differences.\n\n\nNo dia 14/03/2012, ?s 22:36, Daniel Petersen\n escreveu:\n\nWell, I'm way behind in all the gritty details of this debate, but (that's\nwhere you all stop reading - ach, well)... Just because Wolfe is no Card (is\nthat a pun?) doesn't mean he can't be a clearly spiritual (and, dare I say\nit, 'evangelistic') writer in his own way. ?I, at least, have found a richly\nrendered 'incarnational' and 'improvisational' sort of 'apologia' and\n'euangelion' (yes, radically distinct in many important ways from the likes\nof Chesterton or Lewis) IN THE TEXTS of the Solar Cycle, an invitational and\n'subversive' Christian orthodoxy and orthopraxy (be they ever so slyly\nidiosyncratic) that basically 'triumphs' over all the other systems (e.g.\nfrom polytheism to gnosticism) in a theo-comedic 'underdog' sort of way (for\nthose who wish to see it - Wolfe is no bully). ?[Akin to St Paul's 'cosmic\njudo' sort of atonement theology in Colossians 2:15.]\n\nI believe that this being the case in no way shuts down or closes the\n'infinite play of meaning' that his narratives clearly intend to induce.\n?But it does give that play certain contours and trajectories if we want to\nacknowledge them.\n\nI hope to write about it in more detail some day...\n\n-DOJP\n\n\n_______________________________________________\nUrth Mailing List\nTo post, write urth at urth.net\nSubscription/information: http://www.urth.net" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "_______________________________________________\nUrth Mailing List\nTo post, write urth at urth.net\nSubscription/information: http://www.urth.net" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F6282C2.80601@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2012-03-16T00:01:06+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F6279D2.8000306@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/15/2012 7:22 PM, James Wynn wrote:\nFor the record, I never had any problem seeing the allegorical parts \nin LWW or the Silver Chair (the most allegorical of all the stories). \nTLB is not even allegorical. It's merely eschatological. Given who \nAslan was revealed to be in \"The Magician's Nephew\", it is inevitable \nthat he would play the role he did at the end of the the Narnian world.\n\nIf one sees materialism as an \"oppositional identity\" to Christianity \n(and all young materialist in the West do because that is almost \nalways their only counter-example), then you are likely to feel \nchaffing at Aslan's role in TLB. But Aslan's plays the same role in \nTLB as he does in ALL the other book. He shows up at the end to sort \nthings out and sends the characters on their way. But only if one \nassociates End-of-the-World stories SOLELY with Christianity would one \nsuddenly realize in TLB that Aslan is Jesus.\n\nBut there is sooo much more to Narnia than the Christian allegory. \nAlmost all of it is, as Lewis called it, a stew with lots of familiar \nflavors rather than a lock-and-key allegory. It's just that there are \na few clumps of beefy allegory in there as well.\n\nIn fact, being young and recognizing the allegories in the story made \n\"The Last Battle\" quite confusing for me, I think. Because Lewis has \na very idiosyncratic theology (it certainly wouldn't jive with \nPresbyterianism). If, because of one's youth, he is unaware that \nthere are so many subtle shades of Christian belief, he will surely \nhave a WTH reaction. And I did.\n\nSo TLB would be better if it were read by an older, more worldly \nperson who can both recognize how different Aslan is from our Standard \nJesus and is willing to accept that that is okay. Or someone who has \nhad the time between the first book to the last to familiarize himself \nwith some of Lewis's other writers (\"The Great Divorce\", \"Til We Have \nFaces\", \"Pilgrims Regress\")" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm sure I would have done better with Aslan et al. had I realized that \ndifferent points of view were permitted, let alone existed, within \nChristianity. I was probably more familiar with other religions than I \nwas with the shades within it, and so assumed it was monolithic and \nthus---the worst crime of all to a kid---boring. Never mind that I \ndidn't believe in it; I didn't believe in Middle-earth either." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F6286B5.2090808@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-16T00:17:57+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/15/2012 6:26 PM, Matthew Weber wrote:\nLewis' theology, idiosyncratic? I'd characterize it as broadly \ncatholic and orthodox, though I can see where the hyper-Reformed might \nhave problems with it." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Um...I think he recognized that his views were enough at variance with \nthe beliefs of his fellow-travellers** that it merited noting the fact. \nAnd he certainly did note it in \"The Great Divorce\" during his \nconversation with George MacDonald. Nowadays, one will easily find \npracticing Catholics and Protestants who find Aslan's conversation with \nthe Tash-worshipper to be sensitive and insightful. I doubt that would \nhave been nearly so common in 1960. Educated Catholics like to think of \nthe Church as being \"universalistic\" regarding Soterology (and thus more \nrational than Reformed and Fundamentalist sects) and it probably is in \ntheir experience. But that certainly wasn't my experience growing up in \na small Ohio town that was probably 75% Catholic. Nor is that the \nexperience described by my friends who went to parochial school. The \nmessage was clear and emphatic: \"Outside The Church There Is No Salvation\".\n\n**\"fellow-travelers\" is defined here as Christians who were broadly \n\"evangelical\" in that they considered both Faith and non-belief to be an \nactive, personal decision rather than a cultural ritual" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F6296C3.80107@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2012-03-16T01:26:27+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<1331855173.81013.YahooMailNeo@web121002.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/15/2012 7:46 PM, Craig Brewer wrote:\nYep. I'm not Catholic, but it doesn't really matter. I don't like \nWolfe because I *believe* him or have to share his worldview. I'm not \nlooking to have myself confirmed in someone else's fiction.\n\nBut those who read him with a real eye for a kind of esoteric \nknowledge or even for certain gnostic insights might. But those \nreadings also often overlook the story in favor of the background." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I wonder if there isn't a very good reason for the apparent fact that \nUrth inspires so much yearning for just that \"esoteric knowledge\" and \ninsight in its interpreters. Wolfe is normally quite terse and oblique, \nbut it's not The Ziggurat that keeps coming up again and again in this \nforum. I think few of us here have not felt the pull of that yearning to \nknow another secret.\n\nSeverian's narrative shows any number of gnostic trappings. The culture \nthat is its setting, beginning with the mysteries of the guild where he \nwas raised, clearly values secrets over the sharing of knowledge. He \nrepeatedly hides and reveals, hides and reveals in his own narration. \nEven when information is released, it is often in parable or garbled \nform. Consistently, Wolfe wraps tiny seeds of truth in layers of \ninterpretation and interpolation. The writing of TUOTNS proves that as \nmuch was suggested as was revealed by releasing further information few \nof us could have guessed---though much of it presumably was created \nafter BOTNS was finished, to make a fully-fleshed story out of this \ninformation.\n\nSeveral purposes have been proposed for these multilevel tendencies, and \nmost seem valid. For example, Wolfe plainly has theories about knowledge \nand history as well as of the divine and of literature itself, and \ntherefore he plays with myth as a mode of creation as well as of \ncommunication, encryption, and enlightenment.\n\nAnd he lays it on pretty thick. Regardless of intent, the form of the \nstory fits its apparent function of pointing to bigger things offstage. \nBut is that \"yearning\" more than just an accumulation of narrative \neffects effects and coincidences? Mystery is at the very heart of the \nstory. Severian himself is a question, and he is a Seeker for Truth. \nLittle of what we know about his story is known; much of what we think \nwe know, we have guessed, and much of what we are told is suspect. The \nvery universe he dwells in becomes matter for speculation /within the \ntext/, and what is the big question that keeps coming up again and \nagain? Why, the very one raised just a few days ago: is there a Christ \nin it? If so, who and where?\n\nI used to think this suggestive silence was an attempt to hide or dress \nup the kernel of Severian's story as Christ figure, as well as any \ndeeper layers. But the overall effect of it seems to go beyond that, to \nawaken exactly this yearning for hidden knowledge---the suspicion that \nthere is more to the story than meets the eye, more to be revealed.\n\nNow we know there WAS more information, were the first four books a \n/conscious /exercise in esotericism? Is this how Wolfe came to overdo it \nso much he had to write a fifth book to explain them---not just because \nhis puzzles were too obscure, but because the whole puzzle aspect was \nplanned top-down?\n\nIf so, then to go further: Was it a conscious attempt at encapsulating \nthe human desire for divine knowledge? Not just who-are-we, \nwhere-do-we-come-from, where-are-we-going, but also \nwhat-is-our-relation-to-the-infinite?" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F62980C.8030700@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2012-03-16T01:31:56+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F6286B5.2090808@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/15/2012 8:17 PM, James Wynn wrote:\nOn 3/15/2012 6:26 PM, Matthew Weber wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Lewis' theology, idiosyncratic? I'd characterize it as broadly \ncatholic and orthodox, though I can see where the hyper-Reformed \nmight have problems with it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Um...I think he recognized that his views were enough at variance with \nthe beliefs of his fellow-travellers** that it merited noting the \nfact. And he certainly did note it in \"The Great Divorce\" during his \nconversation with George MacDonald. Nowadays, one will easily find \npracticing Catholics and Protestants who find Aslan's conversation \nwith the Tash-worshipper to be sensitive and insightful. I doubt that \nwould have been nearly so common in 1960. Educated Catholics like to \nthink of the Church as being \"universalistic\" regarding Soterology \n(and thus more rational than Reformed and Fundamentalist sects) and it \nprobably is in their experience. But that certainly wasn't my \nexperience growing up in a small Ohio town that was probably 75% \nCatholic. Nor is that the experience described by my friends who went \nto parochial school. The message was clear and emphatic: \"Outside The \nChurch There Is No Salvation\".\n\n**\"fellow-travelers\" is defined here as Christians who were broadly \n\"evangelical\" in that they considered both Faith and non-belief to be \nan active, personal decision rather than a cultural ritual\n\"Outside The Church There Is No Salvation\" ... but there is nothing \noutside the Church, so how do we know that \"Outside The Church There Is " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No Salvation\"? Because there is nothing outside the Church! But ...\n\nI think have read quite a few stories about that paradox, without \nguessing the inspiration.\n\nAlso, btw: Tash was always a favorite episode of mine.\n\nAnd George MacDonald is another didactic fantasy writer who often just \ncompletely fails to grab me. I am not surprised to hear he and Lewis \nwere pals." } ] }, { "message_id": "<91EBBFB7-515B-4086-B0AC-78E3A21135B1@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-16T02:21:15+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F6286B5.2090808@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No dia 16/03/2012, ?s 00:17, James Wynn escreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "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\"." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think the attitude swings to and fro. The Church always views itself as the home of Salvation. I don't think that has ever changed. What changes over time is the degree to which Salvation is found both inside and outside that home. There is no question of admitting non-catholic doctrines as valid (at least in the bits where they contradict catholic ones), but there is the possibility that all invalid doctrines are not necessarily damning, that non-Catholics can't reach salvation in spite of their doctrinal handicaps. Or that Catholics may fail salvation in spite of their doctrinal advantages! Weren't your mates constantly reminded that they were sinners and nobody could dare presume to know who is going to be saved?\n\nWhere catholic thought shines, IMO - and not only catholic, but modern orthodox to a degree, and some anglican and lutheran too (sorry, I have very little first hand knowledge of fundamentalism and what I do know I find appalling) - is in viewing salvation as organic and achieved through a number of factors, in contrast to the Protestant emphasis on this or that specific ingredient 'alone' (which only the denomination making the claim possesses, of course - as Chesterton put it, they learned to look down on men rather than up to God - much the same judgement the Council of Trent made). But it is my understanding that - apart from fundamentalists - modern Protestants are very far from the radical views of the first decades of the Reformation - which indeed means closer to the spirit of the first few years. I mean, I don't see modern Presbyterians eager to defend a Calvin or a Knox unless it's in de-fanged terms. " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4C2F11F1-598C-41D8-ACF1-6B08EB01390F@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-16T02:32:23+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F62980C.8030700@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No dia 16/03/2012, ?s 01:31, David Stockhoff escreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/15/2012 8:17 PM, James Wynn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 3/15/2012 6:26 PM, Matthew Weber wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "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." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "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\".\n\n**\"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\n\"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 ..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think have read quite a few stories about that paradox, without guessing the inspiration.\n\nAlso, btw: Tash was always a favorite episode of mine.\n\nAnd 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." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Wasn't MacDonald a good half century older? And he was one of those mollified Presbyterians. \nBut 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. " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F62A897.7090109@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2012-03-16T02:42:31+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4C2F11F1-598C-41D8-ACF1-6B08EB01390F@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/15/2012 10:32 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:\nWasn't MacDonald a good half century older? And he was one of those mollified Presbyterians.\nBut 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." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, if it's boring, it's boring. And it depends on what you mean by \n\"didn't pretend\"---as with Lewis, most of his readers were children. If \nyou have no idea what you might be reading, you can't know whether it's \npretense or not.\n\nCertainly Lewis wasn't responsible for whatever marketing got his books \nin my local library and into my hands. But I doubt they were and are \npopular because they are religious: rather, they probably are popular \nbecause they are accessible, imaginative (sometimes magical, as you \nsaid), action-packed, well-written, comforting (Aslan always appeared to \nset things right), and morally nonthreatening. Girls read them as much \nas boys did, and no parents objected to them." } ] }, { "message_id": "<1331866272.35596.YahooMailNeo@web121003.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2012-03-16T02:51:12+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F62A897.7090109@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Phantastes was a beautiful book! Never besmirch the name of MacDonald! heh heh...\n\n\nAs 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.\n\nThat's a perspective I've had trouble explaining to friends who had that \"betrayal\" reaction to Narnia.\n\n\n\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/15/2012 10:32 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:\nWasn't MacDonald a good half century older? And he was one of those mollified Presbyterians.\nBut 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." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "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.\n\nCertainly 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." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F633B9F.7000203@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2012-03-16T13:09:51+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<1331866272.35596.YahooMailNeo@web121003.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm not sure which of MacDonald's books I consider stilted and boring, \nalthough I encountered those as an adult. But I loved the Curdie books \nmy mom read to me when I was four or five." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/15/2012 10:51 PM, Craig Brewer wrote:\nPhantastes was a beautiful book! Never besmirch the name of MacDonald! \nheh heh...\n\nAs someone who was raised in a relatively a-religious family, I \nusually just ignored the obviously religious bits of \nLewis/Tolkien/whoever else. But as I got older, I found that the \nnon-\"preachy\" manner of fictional Christian works actually worked to \nexplain why faith was interesting and attractive. After all, here was \nsome fantasy that might be real on a certain level, or at least a \nnumber of people thought so.\n\nThat's a perspective I've had trouble explaining to friends who had \nthat \"betrayal\" reaction to Narnia.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n*From:* David Stockhoff \n*To:* The Urth Mailing List \n*Sent:* Thursday, March 15, 2012 9:42 PM\n*Subject:* Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es)\n\nOn 3/15/2012 10:32 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Wasn't MacDonald a good half century older? And he was one of those \nmollified Presbyterians.\nBut is it fair to criticise didacticism which didn't pretend to be \nanything else? I mean, neither MacDonald nor Lewis, that I know of, \ntried to present their books as doctrinally free. At least MacDonald \nwas overt as to their didactic nature. It isn't Lewis's fault if the \nNarnia books got popular that they were pushed everywhere as mere \nchildren's books without a caveat that they were had a religious \nundercurrent. Maybe the real issue is that they are popular because \nthat undercurrent pleases people, just as Praise of Empire pleased \nothers, and those who take exception to that way of writing resent the \npopularity." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Well, if it's boring, it's boring. And it depends on what you mean by \n\"didn't pretend\"---as with Lewis, most of his readers were children. \nIf you have no idea what you might be reading, you can't know whether \nit's pretense or not.\n\nCertainly Lewis wasn't responsible for whatever marketing got his \nbooks in my local library and into my hands. But I doubt they were and \nare popular because they are religious: rather, they probably are \npopular because they are accessible, imaginative (sometimes magical, \nas you said), action-packed, well-written, comforting (Aslan always \nappeared to set things right), and morally nonthreatening. Girls read \nthem as much as boys did, and no parents objected to them.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-16T14:15:12+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F633B9F.7000203@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "But in a literary world populated by Dr. Cranes, that could be seen as \na form of subversion." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "David Stockhoff: Possibly. It's true that many of the Golden Age SF writers \nwere Jewish. But look at how many fantasy writers were overtly Christian." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nHeh, funny. I do picture Dr. Crane as jewish. Edward G. Robinson would play\nhim in the movie. Anyway, I purposefully only said that SF is a genre highly\npopulated by atheist though. I thought someone might (justifiably) point\nout that that isn't true for fantasy. Funny, I think Wolfe has cited LeGuin\nas someone he admires but I'd say their perceived ideologies are diametrically\nopposed. Anyway, yeah, I can agree that perhaps Wolfe is subverting SF with \nfantasy more than religion." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Severian's narrative shows any number of gnostic trappings. The culture \nthat is its setting, beginning with the mysteries of the guild where he \nwas raised, clearly values secrets over the sharing of knowledge. He \nrepeatedly hides and reveals, hides and reveals in his own narration." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nSo we have a story about a gnostic sect living on a gnostic planet in a gnostic\nuniverse and we are forced to use gnostic methods to discern the full meaning\nof the story. No lesson of simple Christian faith here. Secret knowledge is \nindeed required.\n \nFor some reason the example of Abaia comes to mind. In earlier readings I didn't \nknow mythological Abaia was an eel. So I didn't know he was meant to be associated\nwith Murene, the town on the shores of Lake Diuturna. Knowing that suggests that \nthe Baldanders character is supposed to be associated with both Juturna and Abaia. \nAnd knowing the association with these two fishy characters might explain his \nunderwater breathing and the scars(?) on his neck. But who (pre-internet) knew\nwho/what Abaia was?\n \nAnd there are so many other examples where really esoteric knowledge like that is \nrequired to piece the puzzles together. Juripari, Fomalhaut, Ouroboros and \nMatthew 17:27 all relate to fish mouths. How do these relate to each other (and\nAbaia and Thelxiepeia and Mamelta and The Mother)? I guess there probably remains\nmysteries to solve. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F634BDD.3080309@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-16T14:19:09+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F633B9F.7000203@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Try some of his short stories and novellas:\n\nPhotogen and Nycteris (aka Day Boy & Night Girl, aka Son of the Day, \nDaughter of Night)\nLight Princess (aka Little Daylight)\nGolden Key\nTranslations for Novalis\n\nLewis and MacDonald never met. But Lewis credited MacDonald's fiction as \nan important element in his conversion. He (and the reception of his \nchildren) were important in the publication of Alice in Wonderland. \nAlthough he was a pastor for a time, his sermons and theology got him in \ntrouble and he was eventually pushed out.\n\nJ." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/16/2012 8:09 AM, David Stockhoff wrote:\nI'm not sure which of MacDonald's books I consider stilted and boring, \nalthough I encountered those as an adult. But I loved the Curdie books \nmy mom read to me when I was four or five.\n\nOn 3/15/2012 10:51 PM, Craig Brewer wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Phantastes was a beautiful book! Never besmirch the name of \nMacDonald! heh heh...\n\nAs someone who was raised in a relatively a-religious family, I \nusually just ignored the obviously religious bits of \nLewis/Tolkien/whoever else. But as I got older, I found that the \nnon-\"preachy\" manner of fictional Christian works actually worked to \nexplain why faith was interesting and attractive. After all, here was \nsome fantasy that might be real on a certain level, or at least a \nnumber of people thought so.\n\nThat's a perspective I've had trouble explaining to friends who had \nthat \"betrayal\" reaction to Narnia.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n*From:* David Stockhoff \n*To:* The Urth Mailing List \n*Sent:* Thursday, March 15, 2012 9:42 PM\n*Subject:* Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es)\n\nOn 3/15/2012 10:32 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Wasn't MacDonald a good half century older? And he was one of those \nmollified Presbyterians.\nBut is it fair to criticise didacticism which didn't pretend to be \nanything else? I mean, neither MacDonald nor Lewis, that I know of, \ntried to present their books as doctrinally free. At least MacDonald \nwas overt as to their didactic nature. It isn't Lewis's fault if the \nNarnia books got popular that they were pushed everywhere as mere \nchildren's books without a caveat that they were had a religious \nundercurrent. Maybe the real issue is that they are popular because \nthat undercurrent pleases people, just as Praise of Empire pleased \nothers, and those who take exception to that way of writing resent \nthe popularity." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Well, if it's boring, it's boring. And it depends on what you mean by \n\"didn't pretend\"---as with Lewis, most of his readers were children. \nIf you have no idea what you might be reading, you can't know whether \nit's pretense or not.\n\nCertainly Lewis wasn't responsible for whatever marketing got his \nbooks in my local library and into my hands. But I doubt they were \nand are popular because they are religious: rather, they probably are \npopular because they are accessible, imaginative (sometimes magical, \nas you said), action-packed, well-written, comforting (Aslan always \nappeared to set things right), and morally nonthreatening. Girls read \nthem as much as boys did, and no parents objected to them.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-16T15:58:44+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ha, thanks everyone for engaging so profusely with my initial rant. I\nthink all the angles have been well-covered. I'll just add that any of you\nwho think Lewis and/or MacDonald have little literary merit and are\nreducible to dishonesty and/or didacticism, well...\n\nyou can go suck an egg. And I wish you speedy recovery from your literary\nmyopia. :)\n\nAs to Lee's direct question:\n\nJust as a thought experiment, what would the reverse bring for you? What if\nthere was, say, a deathbed confession by Wolfe that all his work was meant\nto\nsubvert belief in Christ and promote worship of Satan or Dionysus. Would\nyou be\nout?\n\nThis did happen to me in the past few years with one of my favourite\nsingers and lyricists, Nick Cave. First I just loved his musical and\nlyrical artistry - some of my all-time favourite stuff. Then I noticed his\nlyrics were consistently more and more 'God-conscious' and even\nspecifically 'Christ-conscious'. Then he started professing to believe in\nGod and in Christ (if in an idiosyncratic sense) - then his lyrics became\neven more blatantly 'Christian'. Then he suddenly said in several\ninterviews on the back of his second novel coming out (The Death of Bunny\nMunro) that he did not believe in the literal existence of a personal God -\ncontradicting quite clear statements in interviews in very recent years.\n Was I confused and even disappointed? Yeah. Have I abandoned enjoying,\nfollowing and analysing his work? No way. Do I think the discussion is\nclosed? Uh-uh.\n\n\n-DOJP" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 7:30 PM, Lee Berman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Daniel Petersen: PLEASE (EVERYONE) LISTEN TO THIS IF NOTHING ELSE:\nI'm worried that some here can only stomach Wolfe if he can be kept\nambiguous about Catholic orthodoxy and that if it could ever be shown that\nHIS FICTION clearly 'favours' the Church, then they would be out. I'm\nbeginning to wonder if the need to keep that at bay fuels a lot of the\ndebate here." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Daniel, there has been much militant atheism found in the media in the past\nfew years so I understand your concern. I don't think it is has a good\nbasis\nwhen it comes to the Lupiverse though. Consider Peter Wright who, in\nAttending\nDaedalus, takes a deeply analytical view of BotNS which is entirely\nsecular.\nDespite Wright's atheist leanings I don't think he is any less of a Wolfe\nfan\nwhen forced to acknowledge Wolfe's Christian influences on his writing. I\nsuspect the same is true for any militant atheists who happen to reside\nhere.\n\nJust as a thought experiment, what would the reverse bring for you? What if\nthere was, say, a deathbed confession by Wolfe that all his work was meant\nto\nsubvert belief in Christ and promote worship of Satan or Dionysus. Would\nyou be\nout?\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1331917813.6726.YahooMailNeo@web84102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "DAVID STOCKHOFF", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2012-03-16T17:10:13+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "________________________________\n From: Lee Berman \nTo: urth at urth.net \nSent: Friday, March 16, 2012 10:15 AM\nSubject: (urth) Lupiverse(es)\n \nSo we have a story about a gnostic sect living on a gnostic planet in a gnostic\nuniverse and we are forced to use gnostic methods to discern the full meaning\nof the story. No lesson of simple Christian faith here. Secret knowledge is \nindeed required.\n\nFor some reason the example of Abaia comes to mind. In earlier readings I didn't \nknow mythological Abaia was an eel. So I didn't know he was meant to be associated\nwith Murene, the town on the shores of Lake Diuturna. Knowing that suggests that \nthe Baldanders character is supposed to be associated with both Juturna and Abaia. \nAnd knowing the association with these two fishy characters might explain his \nunderwater breathing and the scars(?) on his neck. But who (pre-internet) knew\nwho/what Abaia was?\n\nAnd there are so many other examples where really esoteric knowledge like that is \nrequired to piece the puzzles together. Juripari, Fomalhaut, Ouroboros and \nMatthew 17:27 all relate to fish mouths. How do these relate to each other (and\nAbaia and Thelxiepeia and Mamelta and The Mother)? I guess there probably remains\nmysteries to solve. ??? ??? ??? ? ??? ??? ? \n\n..........................................................................................................................................\nThe fish motif is scattered so far and wide I don't know whether it has specific meaning or a general one. Certainly it has a link to early Christianity's \"sign of the fish,\" which suggests furtiveness, but not necessarily secret or esoteric knowledge. On the other hand, Wolfe is quite familiar with the Nag Hammadi scrolls, where Jesus is clearly shown to withhold plain knowledge from \"the people\" and reserve it for the apostles. \n\nWho knows what sign Agia scratched in the dirt?" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1331917893.7498.YahooMailNeo@web84103.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "DAVID STOCKHOFF", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2012-03-16T17:11:33+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F634BDD.3080309@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Golden Key: THAT's the one. Dull, dull, dull, dull, dull. \n\n\n;)\n\n\n\n \n\nTry some of his short stories and novellas:\n\nPhotogen and Nycteris (aka Day Boy & Night Girl, aka Son of the\n Day, Daughter of Night)\nLight Princess (aka Little Daylight)\nGolden Key\nTranslations for Novalis\n\nLewis and MacDonald never met. But Lewis credited MacDonald's\n fiction as an important element in his conversion. He (and the\n reception of his children) were important in the publication of\n Alice in Wonderland. Although he was a pastor for a time, his\n sermons and theology got him in trouble and he was eventually pushed\n out.\n\nJ.\n\nOn 3/16/2012 8:09 AM, David Stockhoff wrote: \nI'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. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/15/2012 10:51 PM, Craig Brewer wrote: \nPhantastes was a beautiful book! Never besmirch the name of MacDonald! heh heh..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "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.\n\n\nThat's a perspective I've had trouble explaining to friends who had that \"betrayal\" reaction to Narnia.\n\n\n\n________________________________\nFrom: David Stockhoff \nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nSent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 9:42 PM\nSubject: Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es)\n\nOn 3/15/2012 10:32 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Wasn't MacDonald a good half century older? And he\n was one of those mollified Presbyterians.\nBut is it fair to criticise didacticism which didn't" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " pretend to be anything else? I mean, neither MacDonald nor\n Lewis, that I know of, tried to present their books as\n doctrinally free. At least MacDonald was overt as to their\n didactic nature. It isn't Lewis's fault if the Narnia\n books got popular that they were pushed everywhere as mere\n children's books without a caveat that they were had a\n religious undercurrent. Maybe the real issue is that they\n are popular because that undercurrent pleases people, just\n as Praise of Empire pleased others, and those who take\n exception to that way of writing resent the popularity." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Well, if it's boring, it's boring. And it depends on what\n you mean by \"didn't pretend\"---as with Lewis, most of his\n readers were children. If you have no idea what you might\n be reading, you can't know whether it's pretense or not.\n\nCertainly Lewis wasn't responsible for whatever marketing\n got his books in my local library and into my hands. But I\n doubt they were and are popular because they are\n religious: rather, they probably are popular because they\n are accessible, imaginative (sometimes magical, as you\n said), action-packed, well-written, comforting (Aslan\n always appeared to set things right), and morally\n nonthreatening. Girls read them as much as boys did, and\n no parents objected to them.\n_______________________________________________\nUrth Mailing List\nTo post, write urth at urth.net\nSubscription/information: http://www.urth.net\n\n\n\n\n_______________________________________________" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Urth Mailing List\nTo post, write urth at urth.net Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "_______________________________________________" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Urth Mailing List\nTo post, write urth at urth.net Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1331918866.15760.YahooMailNeo@web84105.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "DAVID STOCKHOFF", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2012-03-16T17:27:46+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [] }, { "message_id": "<1331924289.48204.YahooMailNeo@web84107.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "DAVID STOCKHOFF", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2012-03-16T18:58:09+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "________________________________\n From: Lee Berman \nTo: urth at urth.net \nSent: Friday, March 16, 2012 10:15 AM\nSubject: (urth) Lupiverse(es)\n \n\n\nFor some reason the example of Abaia comes to mind. In earlier readings I didn't \nknow mythological Abaia was an eel. So I didn't know he was meant to be associated\nwith Murene, the town on the shores of Lake Diuturna. Knowing that suggests that \nthe Baldanders character is supposed to be associated with both Juturna and Abaia. \nAnd knowing the association with these two fishy characters might explain his \nunderwater breathing and the scars(?) on his neck. But who (pre-internet) knew\nwho/what Abaia was?\n\nAnd there are so many other examples where really esoteric knowledge like that is \nrequired to piece the puzzles together. Juripari, Fomalhaut, Ouroboros and \nMatthew 17:27 all relate to fish mouths. How do these relate to each other (and\nAbaia and Thelxiepeia and Mamelta and The Mother)? I guess there probably remains\nmysteries to solve. ??? ??? ??? ? ??? ??? ? \n\n\n-------------------------------------------------------------\nIncidentally, juruparis are also called Earth Eaters.\n\nOn a tangent, has anyone seen this link? It's an amusing interpretation of BNS as a set of tropes:\n\nhttp://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Literature/BookOfTheNewSun?from=Main.BookOfTheNewSun" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-16T19:09:27+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<1331917893.7498.YahooMailNeo@web84103.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's the BEST! You have no\nsoul! You are not human, you are machine!\n\n(To be honest, it was on a second read that it blew me away.)\n\n-DOJP" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:11 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote:\nGolden Key: THAT's the one. Dull, dull, dull, dull, dull.\n\n;)\n\n ------------------------------\n*From:* James Wynn \n*To:* The Urth Mailing List \n*Sent:* Friday, March 16, 2012 10:19 AM\n*Subject:* Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es)\n\n Try some of his short stories and novellas:\n\nPhotogen and Nycteris (aka Day Boy & Night Girl, aka Son of the Day,\nDaughter of Night)\nLight Princess (aka Little Daylight)\nGolden Key\nTranslations for Novalis\n\nLewis and MacDonald never met. But Lewis credited MacDonald's fiction as\nan important element in his conversion. He (and the reception of his\nchildren) were important in the publication of Alice in Wonderland.\nAlthough he was a pastor for a time, his sermons and theology got him in\ntrouble and he was eventually pushed out.\n\nJ.\n\nOn 3/16/2012 8:09 AM, David Stockhoff wrote:\n\nI'm not sure which of MacDonald's books I consider stilted and boring,\nalthough I encountered those as an adult. But I loved the Curdie books my\nmom read to me when I was four or five.\n\nOn 3/15/2012 10:51 PM, Craig Brewer wrote:\n\n Phantastes was a beautiful book! Never besmirch the name of MacDonald!\nheh heh...\n\n As someone who was raised in a relatively a-religious family, I usually\njust ignored the obviously religious bits of Lewis/Tolkien/whoever else.\nBut as I got older, I found that the non-\"preachy\" manner of fictional\nChristian works actually worked to explain why faith was interesting and\nattractive. After all, here was some fantasy that might be real on a\ncertain level, or at least a number of people thought so.\n\n That's a perspective I've had trouble explaining to friends who had that\n\"betrayal\" reaction to Narnia.\n\n ------------------------------\n*From:* David Stockhoff \n*To:* The Urth Mailing List \n*Sent:* Thursday, March 15, 2012 9:42 PM\n*Subject:* Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es)\n\nOn 3/15/2012 10:32 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Wasn't MacDonald a good half century older? And he was one of those\nmollified Presbyterians.\nBut is it fair to criticise didacticism which didn't pretend to be\nanything else? I mean, neither MacDonald nor Lewis, that I know of, tried\nto present their books as doctrinally free. At least MacDonald was overt as\nto their didactic nature. It isn't Lewis's fault if the Narnia books got\npopular that they were pushed everywhere as mere children's books without a\ncaveat that they were had a religious undercurrent. Maybe the real issue is\nthat they are popular because that undercurrent pleases people, just as\nPraise of Empire pleased others, and those who take exception to that way\nof writing resent the popularity." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Well, if it's boring, it's boring. And it depends on what you mean by\n\"didn't pretend\"---as with Lewis, most of his readers were children. If you\nhave no idea what you might be reading, you can't know whether it's\npretense or not.\n\nCertainly Lewis wasn't responsible for whatever marketing got his books in\nmy local library and into my hands. But I doubt they were and are popular\nbecause they are religious: rather, they probably are popular because they\nare accessible, imaginative (sometimes magical, as you said),\naction-packed, well-written, comforting (Aslan always appeared to set\nthings right), and morally nonthreatening. Girls read them as much as boys\ndid, and no parents objected to them.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Antonin Scriabin", "address": "kierkegaurdian at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-16T19:11:41+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The Golden Key was a favorite of mine growing up. I wish I could find my\ncopy!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Daniel Petersen <\ndanielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:\nNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's the BEST! You have no\nsoul! You are not human, you are machine!\n\n(To be honest, it was on a second read that it blew me away.)\n\n-DOJP\n\n\nOn Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:11 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Golden Key: THAT's the one. Dull, dull, dull, dull, dull.\n\n;)\n\n ------------------------------\n*From:* James Wynn \n*To:* The Urth Mailing List \n*Sent:* Friday, March 16, 2012 10:19 AM\n*Subject:* Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es)\n\n Try some of his short stories and novellas:\n\nPhotogen and Nycteris (aka Day Boy & Night Girl, aka Son of the Day,\nDaughter of Night)\nLight Princess (aka Little Daylight)\nGolden Key\nTranslations for Novalis\n\nLewis and MacDonald never met. But Lewis credited MacDonald's fiction as\nan important element in his conversion. He (and the reception of his\nchildren) were important in the publication of Alice in Wonderland.\nAlthough he was a pastor for a time, his sermons and theology got him in\ntrouble and he was eventually pushed out.\n\nJ.\n\nOn 3/16/2012 8:09 AM, David Stockhoff wrote:\n\nI'm not sure which of MacDonald's books I consider stilted and boring,\nalthough I encountered those as an adult. But I loved the Curdie books my\nmom read to me when I was four or five.\n\nOn 3/15/2012 10:51 PM, Craig Brewer wrote:\n\n Phantastes was a beautiful book! Never besmirch the name of MacDonald!\nheh heh...\n\n As someone who was raised in a relatively a-religious family, I usually\njust ignored the obviously religious bits of Lewis/Tolkien/whoever else.\nBut as I got older, I found that the non-\"preachy\" manner of fictional\nChristian works actually worked to explain why faith was interesting and\nattractive. After all, here was some fantasy that might be real on a\ncertain level, or at least a number of people thought so.\n\n That's a perspective I've had trouble explaining to friends who had\nthat \"betrayal\" reaction to Narnia.\n\n ------------------------------\n*From:* David Stockhoff \n*To:* The Urth Mailing List \n*Sent:* Thursday, March 15, 2012 9:42 PM\n*Subject:* Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es)\n\nOn 3/15/2012 10:32 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Wasn't MacDonald a good half century older? And he was one of those\nmollified Presbyterians.\nBut is it fair to criticise didacticism which didn't pretend to be\nanything else? I mean, neither MacDonald nor Lewis, that I know of, tried\nto present their books as doctrinally free. At least MacDonald was overt as\nto their didactic nature. It isn't Lewis's fault if the Narnia books got\npopular that they were pushed everywhere as mere children's books without a\ncaveat that they were had a religious undercurrent. Maybe the real issue is\nthat they are popular because that undercurrent pleases people, just as\nPraise of Empire pleased others, and those who take exception to that way\nof writing resent the popularity." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Well, if it's boring, it's boring. And it depends on what you mean by\n\"didn't pretend\"---as with Lewis, most of his readers were children. If you\nhave no idea what you might be reading, you can't know whether it's\npretense or not.\n\nCertainly Lewis wasn't responsible for whatever marketing got his books\nin my local library and into my hands. But I doubt they were and are\npopular because they are religious: rather, they probably are popular\nbecause they are accessible, imaginative (sometimes magical, as you said),\naction-packed, well-written, comforting (Aslan always appeared to set\nthings right), and morally nonthreatening. Girls read them as much as boys\ndid, and no parents objected to them.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-16T19:22:12+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<1331918866.15760.YahooMailNeo@web84105.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yeah, David, I know what you mean about 'personal God' and even more so\n'personal Jesus' - the latter phrase has no good use at all to me. The\nformer can be misleading, but I think it's trying to talk about a view of\nGod as willing and knowing and feeling and acting and so on (even if also\n'Beyond Personality' to mention the the title of the third book in Lewis's\nMere Christianity). It's often put in terms of gods usually being either\npersonal but finite (polytheism) or infinite but impersonal (some forms of\npantheism, perhaps, or deism and others) - whereas the traditional\nmonotheistic conception (mainly Jewish, Christian, Muslim, I guess) is a\nGod that is BOTH personal AND infinite - and all the theology follows:\n viz. the many 'attributes' and so on - omnipotent, omnipresent,\nomnibenevolent, etc. I think Wolfe's fiction hints toward the orthodox\nparadox of God as BOTH transcendent (totally beyond us in divine\nincomprensibility) AND 'immanent' (near to his creation, involved, even\nincarnational).\n\nCave said he didn't believe in a personal God who was 'looking after him'\nor something along those lines. But he did also say in the same breath\nthat he was 'open' and that he wouldn't want anyone to come up with a\n'proof' for God because he loved mystery in the universe. Again, I think\nWolfe manages to avoid 'proofs' and embrace mystery - yet also say\nsomething concrete about whether God is there and what God is like.\n\n-DOJP" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:27 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote:\n ------------------------------\n*From:* Daniel Petersen \n*To:* The Urth Mailing List \n*Sent:* Friday, March 16, 2012 11:58 AM\n*Subject:* Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es)\n\nHa, thanks everyone for engaging so profusely with my initial rant. I\nthink all the angles have been well-covered. I'll just add that any of you\nwho think Lewis and/or MacDonald have little literary merit and are\nreducible to dishonesty and/or didacticism, well...\n\n---I think there's something about this forum that exaggerates what is\nsaid, and I'm just not careful enough to avoid a ballooning\nmisunderstanding. I think Lewis and MacDonald are great, sometimes. And\ndidacticism is not = dishonesty. There's nothing wrong with didacticism . .\n. unless it's dishonest, or pandering, or condescending, or poorly\nexecuted, or without life. In other words: murder is already illegal, we\ndon't have to pass a special law against certain types of murders.\n\nAnd I am far from being the reader I was at 9.\n\n\n\nyou can go suck an egg. And I wish you speedy recovery from your literary\nmyopia. :)\n\nAs to Lee's direct question:\n\nJust as a thought experiment, what would the reverse bring for you? What if\nthere was, say, a deathbed confession by Wolfe that all his work was meant\nto\nsubvert belief in Christ and promote worship of Satan or Dionysus. Would\nyou be\nout?\n\nThis did happen to me in the past few years with one of my favourite\nsingers and lyricists, Nick Cave. First I just loved his musical and\nlyrical artistry - some of my all-time favourite stuff. Then I noticed his\nlyrics were consistently more and more 'God-conscious' and even\nspecifically 'Christ-conscious'. Then he started professing to believe in\nGod and in Christ (if in an idiosyncratic sense) - then his lyrics became\neven more blatantly 'Christian'. Then he suddenly said in several\ninterviews on the back of his second novel coming out (The Death of Bunny\nMunro) that he did not believe in the literal existence of a personal God -\ncontradicting quite clear statements in interviews in very recent years.\n Was I confused and even disappointed? Yeah. Have I abandoned enjoying,\nfollowing and analysing his work? No way. Do I think the discussion is\nclosed? Uh-uh.\n\n---I have wondered about that, having noticed the change in lyrics and\nread statements that Cave is Catholic. But what's the contradiction arising\nfrom disbelieving in a \"personal\" God?\n\n(That term, especially in the form \"personal Jesus,\" always makes me think\nof something portable and convenient, like a purse dog. Does the Church\nassign everyone a non-optional personal God, like Philip Pullman's daemons?)\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-16T19:30:48+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I really enjoy the edition where it's printed as its own small book, with\nillustrations by Maurice Sendak and an afterword by W. H. Auden. (And I'll\nside with Auden over Stockhoff as to the story and its author's worth - but\nmaybe the Stock finds Auden dull as well? [If so only further proving my\ntheory that he is inhuman.])\n\nYou know, I actually first read that edition aloud to my daughter when she\nwas 5 or 6 and that was the go that really bowled me over. David, do you\nknow of any bairns you can read it aloud to?\n\n(Does anyone have experiences reading Wolfe aloud? I've never done that, I\ndon't think. Lafferty gains whole new dimensions when you do it with him -\nI wonder what it would be like with Wolfe. I picture it being more of a\nreading to fellow adults scenario, rather than to children.)\n\n-DOJP" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Antonin Scriabin\nwrote:\nThe Golden Key was a favorite of mine growing up. I wish I could find my\ncopy!\n\nOn Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Daniel Petersen <\ndanielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's the BEST! You have\nno soul! You are not human, you are machine!\n\n(To be honest, it was on a second read that it blew me away.)\n\n-DOJP\n\n\nOn Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:11 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Golden Key: THAT's the one. Dull, dull, dull, dull, dull.\n\n;)\n\n ------------------------------\n*From:* James Wynn \n*To:* The Urth Mailing List \n*Sent:* Friday, March 16, 2012 10:19 AM\n*Subject:* Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es)\n\n Try some of his short stories and novellas:\n\nPhotogen and Nycteris (aka Day Boy & Night Girl, aka Son of the Day,\nDaughter of Night)\nLight Princess (aka Little Daylight)\nGolden Key\nTranslations for Novalis\n\nLewis and MacDonald never met. But Lewis credited MacDonald's fiction as\nan important element in his conversion. He (and the reception of his\nchildren) were important in the publication of Alice in Wonderland.\nAlthough he was a pastor for a time, his sermons and theology got him in\ntrouble and he was eventually pushed out.\n\nJ.\n\nOn 3/16/2012 8:09 AM, David Stockhoff wrote:\n\nI'm not sure which of MacDonald's books I consider stilted and boring,\nalthough I encountered those as an adult. But I loved the Curdie books my\nmom read to me when I was four or five.\n\nOn 3/15/2012 10:51 PM, Craig Brewer wrote:\n\n Phantastes was a beautiful book! Never besmirch the name of MacDonald!\nheh heh...\n\n As someone who was raised in a relatively a-religious family, I\nusually just ignored the obviously religious bits of Lewis/Tolkien/whoever\nelse. But as I got older, I found that the non-\"preachy\" manner of\nfictional Christian works actually worked to explain why faith was\ninteresting and attractive. After all, here was some fantasy that might be\nreal on a certain level, or at least a number of people thought so.\n\n That's a perspective I've had trouble explaining to friends who had\nthat \"betrayal\" reaction to Narnia.\n\n ------------------------------\n*From:* David Stockhoff " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Antonin Scriabin", "address": "kierkegaurdian at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-16T19:33:46+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hhhmmm, the only book I have ever read out loud was *The Crying of Lot\n49*by Pynchon. My copy of\n*The Golden Key* I remembering being blue, with gold-looking inlays for the\ntitle, etc., on the cover. It was very old and pretty." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Daniel Petersen <\ndanielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:\nI really enjoy the edition where it's printed as its own small book, with\nillustrations by Maurice Sendak and an afterword by W. H. Auden. (And I'll\nside with Auden over Stockhoff as to the story and its author's worth - but\nmaybe the Stock finds Auden dull as well? [If so only further proving my\ntheory that he is inhuman.])\n\nYou know, I actually first read that edition aloud to my daughter when she\nwas 5 or 6 and that was the go that really bowled me over. David, do you\nknow of any bairns you can read it aloud to?\n\n(Does anyone have experiences reading Wolfe aloud? I've never done that,\nI don't think. Lafferty gains whole new dimensions when you do it with him\n- I wonder what it would be like with Wolfe. I picture it being more of a\nreading to fellow adults scenario, rather than to children.)\n\n-DOJP\n\n\nOn Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Antonin Scriabin <\nkierkegaurdian at gmail.com> wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The Golden Key was a favorite of mine growing up. I wish I could find my\ncopy!\n\nOn Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Daniel Petersen <\ndanielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's the BEST! You have\nno soul! You are not human, you are machine!\n\n(To be honest, it was on a second read that it blew me away.)\n\n-DOJP\n\n\nOn Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:11 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF \n*To:* The Urth Mailing List \n*Sent:* Friday, March 16, 2012 10:19 AM\n*Subject:* Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es)\n\n Try some of his short stories and novellas:\n\nPhotogen and Nycteris (aka Day Boy & Night Girl, aka Son of the Day,\nDaughter of Night)\nLight Princess (aka Little Daylight)\nGolden Key\nTranslations for Novalis\n\nLewis and MacDonald never met. But Lewis credited MacDonald's fiction\nas an important element in his conversion. He (and the reception of his\nchildren) were important in the publication of Alice in Wonderland.\nAlthough he was a pastor for a time, his sermons and theology got him in\ntrouble and he was eventually pushed out.\n\nJ.\n\nOn 3/16/2012 8:09 AM, David Stockhoff wrote:\n\nI'm not sure which of MacDonald's books I consider stilted and boring,\nalthough I encountered those as an adult. But I loved the Curdie books my\nmom read to me when I was four or five.\n\nOn 3/15/2012 10:51 PM, Craig Brewer wrote:\n\n Phantastes was a beautiful book! Never besmirch the name of\nMacDonald! heh heh...\n\n As someone who was raised in a relatively a-religious family, I\nusually just ignored the obviously religious bits of Lewis/Tolkien/whoever\nelse. But as I got older, I found that the non-\"preachy\" manner of\nfictional Christian works actually worked to explain why faith was\ninteresting and attractive. After all, here was some fantasy that might be\nreal on a certain level, or at least a number of people thought so.\n\n That's a perspective I've had trouble explaining to friends who had\nthat \"betrayal\" reaction to Narnia.\n\n ------------------------------\n*From:* David Stockhoff " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F6396E5.3030807@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-16T19:39:17+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Antonin Scriabin wrote (16-03-2012 19:11):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The Golden Key was a favorite of mine growing up. I wish I could find my\ncopy!" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I have here on my desk an unread copy of MacDonald's The Wise Woman atop* an \nunread copy of Moorcock's City of the Beast. They haven't as of yet set fire \nto each other.\n\n(*) I don't know how to say this. Atop seems wrong if there's only one thing \nunder the things that is placed over it." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-16T19:50:05+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F6396E5.3030807@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Possibly 'on top of' would be the most natural construction? But I myself\nmight be likely to say 'atop' - but I'm a long-time lyricist/poet/whatever,\nso I'm apt to use older or odd wording and generally not know what I'm\ndoing, just naively thinking things 'sound cool'.\n\n(Funny comment about the books not setting one another aflame!)\n\n-DOJP\n\n2012/3/16 Ant?nio Pedro Marques " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Antonin Scriabin wrote (16-03-2012 19:11):\n\n The Golden Key was a favorite of mine growing up. I wish I could find my\ncopy!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I have here on my desk an unread copy of MacDonald's The Wise Woman atop*\nan unread copy of Moorcock's City of the Beast. They haven't as of yet set\nfire to each other.\n\n(*) I don't know how to say this. Atop seems wrong if there's only one\nthing under the things that is placed over it.\n\n______________________________**_________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-16T19:53:45+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ha, Pynchon aloud? I've not read him but the impression I get of his work\nmakes me think that must have been an interesting or unusual scenario.\n\nI just remembered I did once read a Wolfe story aloud to my kids - 'The\nFriendship Light', just because I wanted to read them something scary. I\nskipped the brief mention of them taking photos of having sex together.\n That was some time ago - I think the kids mostly just didn't get it if I\nrecall correctly. (My 16-year-old daughter is now finally reading Wolfe on\nher own and she's quite enjoying the collection* Innocents Aboard*.)\n\n-DOJP" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Antonin Scriabin\nwrote:\nHhhmmm, the only book I have ever read out loud was *The Crying of Lot 49*by Pynchon. My copy of\n*The Golden Key* I remembering being blue, with gold-looking inlays for\nthe title, etc., on the cover. It was very old and pretty.\n\nOn Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Daniel Petersen <\ndanielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I really enjoy the edition where it's printed as its own small book, with\nillustrations by Maurice Sendak and an afterword by W. H. Auden. (And I'll\nside with Auden over Stockhoff as to the story and its author's worth - but\nmaybe the Stock finds Auden dull as well? [If so only further proving my\ntheory that he is inhuman.])\n\nYou know, I actually first read that edition aloud to my daughter when\nshe was 5 or 6 and that was the go that really bowled me over. David, do\nyou know of any bairns you can read it aloud to?\n\n(Does anyone have experiences reading Wolfe aloud? I've never done that,\nI don't think. Lafferty gains whole new dimensions when you do it with him\n- I wonder what it would be like with Wolfe. I picture it being more of a\nreading to fellow adults scenario, rather than to children.)\n\n-DOJP\n\n\nOn Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Antonin Scriabin <\nkierkegaurdian at gmail.com> wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "The Golden Key was a favorite of mine growing up. I wish I could find\nmy copy!\n\nOn Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Daniel Petersen <\ndanielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's the BEST! You have\nno soul! You are not human, you are machine!\n\n(To be honest, it was on a second read that it blew me away.)\n\n-DOJP\n\n\nOn Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:11 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF <\ndstockhoff at verizon.net> wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "Golden Key: THAT's the one. Dull, dull, dull, dull, dull.\n\n;)\n\n ------------------------------\n*From:* James Wynn \n*To:* The Urth Mailing List \n*Sent:* Friday, March 16, 2012 10:19 AM\n*Subject:* Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es)\n\n Try some of his short stories and novellas:\n\nPhotogen and Nycteris (aka Day Boy & Night Girl, aka Son of the Day,\nDaughter of Night)\nLight Princess (aka Little Daylight)\nGolden Key\nTranslations for Novalis\n\nLewis and MacDonald never met. But Lewis credited MacDonald's fiction\nas an important element in his conversion. He (and the reception of his\nchildren) were important in the publication of Alice in Wonderland.\nAlthough he was a pastor for a time, his sermons and theology got him in\ntrouble and he was eventually pushed out.\n\nJ.\n\nOn 3/16/2012 8:09 AM, David Stockhoff wrote:\n\nI'm not sure which of MacDonald's books I consider stilted and boring,\nalthough I encountered those as an adult. But I loved the Curdie books my\nmom read to me when I was four or five.\n\nOn 3/15/2012 10:51 PM, Craig Brewer wrote:\n\n Phantastes was a beautiful book! Never besmirch the name of\nMacDonald! heh heh...\n\n As someone who was raised in a relatively a-religious family, I\nusually just ignored the obviously religious bits of Lewis/Tolkien/whoever\nelse. But as I got older, I found that the non-\"preachy\" manner of\nfictional Christian works actually worked to explain why faith was\ninteresting and attractive. After all, here was some fantasy that might be\nreal on a certain level, or at least a number of people thought so.\n\n That's a perspective I've had trouble explaining to friends who had\nthat \"betrayal\" reaction to Narnia.\n\n ------------------------------\n*From:* David Stockhoff " } ] }, { "message_id": "<1331929942.59974.YahooMailNeo@web84107.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "DAVID STOCKHOFF", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2012-03-16T20:32:22+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "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. \n\n\nI 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.\n\nI 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.\n\n\nAuden is amazing---no, not dull at all.But then he never wrote stories for children, or did he?\n\n\n\n \n\nI 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.])\n\nYou 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”\n\n(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.)\n\n-DOJP\n\n\nOn Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Antonin Scriabin wrote:\n\nThe Golden Key was a favorite of mine growing up. I wish I could find my copy!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Daniel Petersen wrote:\n\nNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ?It's the BEST! ?You have no soul! ?You are not human, you are machine!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "(To be honest, it was on a second read that it blew me away.)\n\n\n-DOJP\n\n\n\nOn Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:11 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote:\n\nGolden Key: THAT's the one. Dull, dull, dull, dull, dull. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": ";)\n\n\n\n\n________________________________\nFrom: James Wynn \nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nSent: Friday, March 16, 2012 10:19 AM\nSubject: Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es)\n\n\nTry some of his short stories and novellas:\n\nPhotogen and Nycteris (aka Day Boy & Night Girl, aka Son of the" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " Day, Daughter of Night)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Light Princess (aka Little Daylight)\nGolden Key\nTranslations for Novalis\n\nLewis and MacDonald never met. But Lewis credited MacDonald's\n fiction as an important element in his conversion. He (and the\n reception of his children) were important in the publication of\n Alice in Wonderland. Although he was a pastor for a time, his\n sermons and theology got him in trouble and he was eventually pushed\n out.\n\nJ.\n\nOn 3/16/2012 8:09 AM, David Stockhoff wrote: \nI'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. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "On 3/15/2012 10:51 PM, Craig Brewer wrote: \nPhantastes was a beautiful book! Never besmirch the name of MacDonald! heh heh..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "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.\n\n\nThat's a perspective I've had trouble explaining to friends who had that \"betrayal\" reaction to Narnia.\n\n\n\n________________________________\nFrom: David Stockhoff \nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nSent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 9:42 PM\nSubject: Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es)\n\nOn 3/15/2012 10:32 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 6, "text": "Wasn't MacDonald a good half century older? And he\n was one of those mollified Presbyterians.\nBut is it fair to criticise didacticism which didn't" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " pretend to be anything else? I mean, neither MacDonald nor\n Lewis, that I know of, tried to present their books as\n doctrinally free. At least MacDonald was overt as to their\n didactic nature. It isn't Lewis's fault if the Narnia\n books got popular that they were pushed everywhere as mere\n children's books without a caveat that they were had a\n religious undercurrent. Maybe the real issue is that they\n are popular because that undercurrent pleases people, just\n as Praise of Empire pleased others, and those who take\n exception to that way of writing resent the popularity." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "Well, if it's boring, it's boring. And it depends on what\n you mean by \"didn't pretend\"---as with Lewis, most of his\n readers were children. If you have no idea what you might\n be reading, you can't know whether it's pretense or not.\n\nCertainly Lewis wasn't responsible for whatever marketing\n got his books in my local library and into my hands. But I\n doubt they were and are popular because they are\n religious: rather, they probably are popular because they\n are accessible, imaginative (sometimes magical, as you\n said), action-packed, well-written, comforting (Aslan\n always appeared to set things right), and morally\n nonthreatening. Girls read them as much as boys did, and\n no parents objected to them.\n_______________________________________________\nUrth Mailing List\nTo post, write urth at urth.net\nSubscription/information: http://www.urth.net\n\n\n\n\n_______________________________________________" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Urth Mailing List\nTo post, write urth at urth.net Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "_______________________________________________" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Urth Mailing List\nTo post, write urth at urth.net Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "_______________________________________________\nUrth Mailing List\nTo post, write urth at urth.net\nSubscription/information: http://www.urth.net\n\n\n\n_______________________________________________\nUrth Mailing List\nTo post, write urth at urth.net\nSubscription/information: http://www.urth.net" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "_______________________________________________\nUrth Mailing List\nTo post, write urth at urth.net\nSubscription/information: http://www.urth.net" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "_______________________________________________\nUrth Mailing List\nTo post, write urth at urth.net\nSubscription/information: http://www.urth.net" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Antonin Scriabin", "address": "kierkegaurdian at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-16T20:34:02+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<1331929942.59974.YahooMailNeo@web84107.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\"Ha, Pynchon aloud? I've not read him but the impression I get of his work\nmakes me think that must have been an interesting or unusual scenario.\"\n\nWell, this particular book of his is short, funny, and full of puns / jokes\n/ absurd scenarios, so for the most part it worked well out loud. :-)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 4:32 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote:\nI plan to read it to my daughter when she's old enough---in a year or two.\nThat's why I collected all the MacDonald I have, though there was a selfish\nmotivation as well.\n\nI have to apologize for shocking everyone, however. It wasn't The Golden\nKey I was thinking of at all. Had I read that as a child I might recall it\nmore clearly than I did in fact---probably as much as Curdie---but I\nenjoyed it nevertheless.\n\nI am not sure which story it was that struck me as stilted and dull, only\nthat the protagonist was a girl. But I shouldn't venture to opine until I\nget back home and find the physical books.\n\nAuden is amazing---no, not dull at all. But then he never wrote stories\nfor children, or did he?\n\n ------------------------------\n*From:* Daniel Petersen \n\n*To:* The Urth Mailing List \n*Sent:* Friday, March 16, 2012 3:30 PM\n*Subject:* Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es)\n\nI really enjoy the edition where it's printed as its own small book, with\nillustrations by Maurice Sendak and an afterword by W. H. Auden. (And I'll\nside with Auden over Stockhoff as to the story and its author's worth - but\nmaybe the Stock finds Auden dull as well? [If so only further proving my\ntheory that he is inhuman.])\n\nYou know, I actually first read that edition aloud to my daughter when she\nwas 5 or 6 and that was the go that really bowled me over. David, do you\nknow of any bairns you can read it aloud to?\n\n(Does anyone have experiences reading Wolfe aloud? I've never done that,\nI don't think. Lafferty gains whole new dimensions when you do it with him\n- I wonder what it would be like with Wolfe. I picture it being more of a\nreading to fellow adults scenario, rather than to children.)\n\n-DOJP\n\nOn Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Antonin Scriabin <\nkierkegaurdian at gmail.com> wrote:\n\nThe Golden Key was a favorite of mine growing up. I wish I could find my\ncopy!\n\nOn Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Daniel Petersen <\ndanielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:\n\nNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's the BEST! You have no\nsoul! You are not human, you are machine!\n\n(To be honest, it was on a second read that it blew me away.)\n\n-DOJP\n\n\nOn Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:11 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote:\n\nGolden Key: THAT's the one. Dull, dull, dull, dull, dull.\n\n;)\n\n ------------------------------\n*From:* James Wynn \n*To:* The Urth Mailing List \n*Sent:* Friday, March 16, 2012 10:19 AM\n*Subject:* Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es)\n\n Try some of his short stories and novellas:\n\nPhotogen and Nycteris (aka Day Boy & Night Girl, aka Son of the Day,\nDaughter of Night)\nLight Princess (aka Little Daylight)\nGolden Key\nTranslations for Novalis\n\nLewis and MacDonald never met. But Lewis credited MacDonald's fiction as\nan important element in his conversion. He (and the reception of his\nchildren) were important in the publication of Alice in Wonderland.\nAlthough he was a pastor for a time, his sermons and theology got him in\ntrouble and he was eventually pushed out.\n\nJ.\n\nOn 3/16/2012 8:09 AM, David Stockhoff wrote:\n\nI'm not sure which of MacDonald's books I consider stilted and boring,\nalthough I encountered those as an adult. But I loved the Curdie books my\nmom read to me when I was four or five.\n\nOn 3/15/2012 10:51 PM, Craig Brewer wrote:\n\n Phantastes was a beautiful book! Never besmirch the name of MacDonald!\nheh heh...\n\n As someone who was raised in a relatively a-religious family, I usually\njust ignored the obviously religious bits of Lewis/Tolkien/whoever else.\nBut as I got older, I found that the non-\"preachy\" manner of fictional\nChristian works actually worked to explain why faith was interesting and\nattractive. After all, here was some fantasy that might be real on a\ncertain level, or at least a number of people thought so.\n\n That's a perspective I've had trouble explaining to friends who had that\n\"betrayal\" reaction to Narnia.\n\n ------------------------------\n*From:* David Stockhoff " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F63A45B.9020103@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-16T20:36:43+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F6396E5.3030807@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/16/2012 2:39 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:\n(*) I don't know how to say this. Atop seems wrong if there's only one \nthing under the things that is placed over it. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\"Atop\" is fine. That's a fine British accent you have there." } ] }, { "message_id": "<1331930361.69106.YahooMailNeo@web121005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2012-03-16T20:39:21+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<1331929942.59974.YahooMailNeo@web84107.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "_The Princess and the Goblin_?\n\n\n\n \n\nI 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. \n\n\nI 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.\n\nI 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.\n\n\nAuden is amazing---no, not dull at all. But then he never wrote stories for children, or did he?\n\n\n\n \n\nI 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.])\n\nYou 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”\n\n(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.)\n\n-DOJP\n\n\nOn Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Antonin Scriabin wrote:\n\nThe Golden Key was a favorite of mine growing up. I wish I could find my copy!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Daniel Petersen wrote:\n\nNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ?It's the BEST! ?You have no soul! ?You are not human, you are machine!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "(To be honest, it was on a second read that it blew me away.)\n\n\n-DOJP\n\n\n\nOn Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:11 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote:\n\nGolden Key: THAT's the one. Dull, dull, dull, dull, dull. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": ";)\n\n\n\n\n________________________________\nFrom: James Wynn \nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nSent: Friday, March 16, 2012 10:19 AM\nSubject: Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es)\n\n\nTry some of his short stories and novellas:\n\nPhotogen and Nycteris (aka Day Boy & Night Girl, aka Son of the" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " Day, Daughter of Night)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Light Princess (aka Little Daylight)\nGolden Key\nTranslations for Novalis\n\nLewis and MacDonald never met. But Lewis credited MacDonald's\n fiction as an important element in his conversion. He (and the\n reception of his children) were important in the publication of\n Alice in Wonderland. Although he was a pastor for a time, his\n sermons and theology got him in trouble and he was eventually pushed\n out.\n\nJ.\n\nOn 3/16/2012 8:09 AM, David Stockhoff wrote: \nI'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. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "On 3/15/2012 10:51 PM, Craig Brewer wrote: \nPhantastes was a beautiful book! Never besmirch the name of MacDonald! heh heh..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "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.\n\n\nThat's a perspective I've had trouble explaining to friends who had that \"betrayal\" reaction to Narnia.\n\n\n\n________________________________\nFrom: David Stockhoff \nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nSent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 9:42 PM\nSubject: Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es)\n\nOn 3/15/2012 10:32 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 6, "text": "Wasn't MacDonald a good half century older? And he\n was one of those mollified Presbyterians.\nBut is it fair to criticise didacticism which didn't" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " pretend to be anything else? I mean, neither MacDonald nor\n Lewis, that I know of, tried to present their books as\n doctrinally free. At least MacDonald was overt as to their\n didactic nature. It isn't Lewis's fault if the Narnia\n books got popular that they were pushed everywhere as mere\n children's books without a caveat that they were had a\n religious undercurrent. Maybe the real issue is that they\n are popular because that undercurrent pleases people, just\n as Praise of Empire pleased others, and those who take\n exception to that way of writing resent the popularity." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "Well, if it's boring, it's boring. And it depends on what\n you mean by \"didn't pretend\"---as with Lewis, most of his\n readers were children. If you have no idea what you might\n be reading, you can't know whether it's pretense or not.\n\nCertainly Lewis wasn't responsible for whatever marketing\n got his books in my local library and into my hands. But I\n doubt they were and are popular because they are\n religious: rather, they probably are popular because they\n are accessible, imaginative (sometimes magical, as you\n said), action-packed, well-written, comforting (Aslan\n always appeared to set things right), and morally\n nonthreatening. Girls read them as much as boys did, and\n no parents objected to them.\n_______________________________________________\nUrth Mailing List\nTo post, write urth at urth.net\nSubscription/information: http://www.urth.net\n\n\n\n\n_______________________________________________" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Urth Mailing List\nTo post, write urth at urth.net Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "_______________________________________________" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Urth Mailing List\nTo post, write urth at urth.net Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "_______________________________________________\nUrth Mailing List\nTo post, write urth at urth.net\nSubscription/information: http://www.urth.net\n\n\n\n_______________________________________________\nUrth Mailing List\nTo post, write urth at urth.net\nSubscription/information: http://www.urth.net" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "_______________________________________________\nUrth Mailing List\nTo post, write urth at urth.net\nSubscription/information: http://www.urth.net" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "_______________________________________________\nUrth Mailing List\nTo post, write urth at urth.net\nSubscription/information: http://www.urth.net" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F63A74A.5050208@clueland.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at clueland.com" }, "date": "2012-03-16T20:49:14+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F6231F1.80400@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/15/2012 1:16 PM, David Stockhoff wrote:\nOn 3/15/2012 1:31 PM, James Wynn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 3/15/2012 7:56 AM, Lee Berman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "But, heresy aside, can such views be considered as leaning toward\ngnostic?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I don't think so. Not in themselves.\n\nWolfe's off-hand proposition that the gods were \"real\" in some way but\nnot deserving of worship would only be directly tied to conventional\ngnosticism if he double-down and stated that the gods were also the\ndirect creators of the universe or the planet. Many Greek philosophers\nopined that their gods had been kings around whom cults had formed.\nPaul thought they were demons or fallen angels who paid no attention\nto the sacrifices offered to their images. Lewis seems to have toyed\nwith the idea that they were created powerful beings who, again, were\nunworthy of worship. Wolfe's comment demonstrates that he is a\nmythopoetist--that he believes the myths carry significant truths\n--spiritual truths-- just as electronic protocols carry data.\n\nFor more understanding of what he believes about mythology, study\nGreen's conversation with his psychiatrist in There Are Doors." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Interestingly, it has been proposed here that the Yesodis may have\ncreated their own whatever-it-is they live in or on. Does that count as\nworld-creation?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Their machine planet certainly fits the \"engine room of creation\" \ndescription." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at clueland.com\nComputational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana\n< http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F63A81C.5090202@clueland.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at clueland.com" }, "date": "2012-03-16T20:52:44+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F6236B8.6050307@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/15/2012 1:36 PM, David Stockhoff wrote:\nOn 3/15/2012 2:13 PM, Jeff Wilson wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 3/15/2012 9:39 AM, David Stockhoff wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "The next is that the story can be interpreted as a kind of satire, even\na comedy. What could be more arrogant than rebuilding or summoning\nChrist? And yet what Christian would not desire, at some level, for that\nto happen? (Perhaps not a modern one, but certainly a medieval one.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "This is not the least common take on things, with people misguidedly\nseeking to possess or coerce their divine benefactor rather than\nfollow his example. It is repeated in UOTNS with Apu Punchau, in the\nRay Bradbury story, \"The Man\", the Terence Stamp/Udo Kier film,\n_Revelation_, and even the comic _G vs E_ series had the agents trying\nto earn enough points to win a personal meeting with JC Himself." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And quarterbacks demanding a victory for their team." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Has Tebow disclosed that's what he's praying for, rather than the usual, \n\"Please don't let me screw up\" and freedom from injury prayers most \nathletes offer up?" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at clueland.com\nComputational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana\n< http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1331931291.78881.YahooMailNeo@web121005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2012-03-16T20:54:51+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F63A81C.5090202@clueland.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "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 \nathletes offer up?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "At this point, it's probably not to let Peyton come to Denver.\n\nSpeaking of...anyone know if Wolfe is a baseball fan? And, if so, is he a Cubs or a White Sox guy?\n\n\n\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/15/2012 1:36 PM, David Stockhoff wrote:\nOn 3/15/2012 2:13 PM, Jeff Wilson wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 3/15/2012 9:39 AM, David Stockhoff wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "The next is that the story can be interpreted as a kind of satire, even\na comedy. What could be more arrogant than rebuilding or summoning\nChrist? And yet what Christian would not desire, at some level, for that\nto happen? (Perhaps not a modern one, but certainly a medieval one.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "This is not the least common take on things, with people misguidedly\nseeking to possess or coerce their divine benefactor rather than\nfollow his example. It is repeated in UOTNS with Apu Punchau, in the\nRay Bradbury story, \"The Man\", the Terence Stamp/Udo Kier film,\n_Revelation_, and even the comic _G vs E_ series had the agents trying\nto earn enough points to win a personal meeting with JC Himself." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And quarterbacks demanding a victory for their team." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "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?\n\n\n-- Jeff Wilson - jwilson at clueland.com\nComputational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana\n< http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F63BA59.50701@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2012-03-16T22:10:33+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F63A81C.5090202@clueland.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hey, I didn't mention Tebow." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/16/2012 4:52 PM, Jeff Wilson wrote:\nOn 3/15/2012 1:36 PM, David Stockhoff wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 3/15/2012 2:13 PM, Jeff Wilson wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "On 3/15/2012 9:39 AM, David Stockhoff wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "The next is that the story can be interpreted as a kind of satire, \neven\na comedy. What could be more arrogant than rebuilding or summoning\nChrist? And yet what Christian would not desire, at some level, for \nthat\nto happen? (Perhaps not a modern one, but certainly a medieval one.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "This is not the least common take on things, with people misguidedly\nseeking to possess or coerce their divine benefactor rather than\nfollow his example. It is repeated in UOTNS with Apu Punchau, in the\nRay Bradbury story, \"The Man\", the Terence Stamp/Udo Kier film,\n_Revelation_, and even the comic _G vs E_ series had the agents trying\nto earn enough points to win a personal meeting with JC Himself." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "And quarterbacks demanding a victory for their team." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Has Tebow disclosed that's what he's praying for, rather than the \nusual, \"Please don't let me screw up\" and freedom from injury prayers \nmost athletes offer up?" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F640E55.2040102@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2012-03-17T04:08:53+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<1331929942.59974.YahooMailNeo@web84107.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Just for the record, I can't find the \"dull\" MacDonald story I thought I \nwas looking for, and I can only guess it's buried among the many ebook \ncollections of his fiction on my old hard drive.\n\nBut /Lilith /certainly fits the bill, and /Phantastes /is not far \nbehind. No worse than William Morris, though.\n\n/Photgen and Nycteris /is one of my favorites, along with several others \nI can't locate at the moment." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/16/2012 4:32 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote:\nI plan to read it to my daughter when she's old enough---in a year or \ntwo. That's why I collected all the MacDonald I have, though there was \na selfish motivation as well.\n\nI have to apologize for shocking everyone, however. It wasn't The \nGolden Key I was thinking of at all. Had I read that as a child I \nmight recall it more clearly than I did in fact---probably as much as \nCurdie---but I enjoyed it nevertheless.\n\nI am not sure which story it was that struck me as stilted and dull, \nonly that the protagonist was a girl. But I shouldn't venture to opine \nuntil I get back home and find the physical books.\n\nAuden is amazing---no, not dull at all. But then he never wrote \nstories for children, or did he?\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n*From:* Daniel Petersen \n*To:* The Urth Mailing List \n*Sent:* Friday, March 16, 2012 3:30 PM\n*Subject:* Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es)\n\nI really enjoy the edition where it's printed as its own small book, \nwith illustrations by Maurice Sendak and an afterword by W. H. Auden. \n (And I'll side with Auden over Stockhoff as to the story and its \nauthor's worth - but maybe the Stock finds Auden dull as well? [If so \nonly further proving my theory that he is inhuman.])\n\nYou know, I actually first read that edition aloud to my daughter when \nshe was 5 or 6 and that was the go that really bowled me over. David, \ndo you know of any bairns you can read it aloud to?\n\n(Does anyone have experiences reading Wolfe aloud? I've never done \nthat, I don't think. Lafferty gains whole new dimensions when you do \nit with him - I wonder what it would be like with Wolfe. I picture it \nbeing more of a reading to fellow adults scenario, rather than to \nchildren.)\n\n-DOJP\n\nOn Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Antonin Scriabin \n> wrote:\n\n The Golden Key was a favorite of mine growing up. I wish I could\n find my copy!\n\n On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Daniel Petersen\n > wrote:\n\n NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's the BEST!\n You have no soul! You are not human, you are machine!\n\n (To be honest, it was on a second read that it blew me away.)\n\n -DOJP\n\n\n On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:11 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF\n > wrote:\n\n Golden Key: THAT's the one. Dull, dull, dull, dull, dull.\n\n ;)\n\n ------------------------------------------------------------------------\n *From:* James Wynn >\n *To:* The Urth Mailing List >\n *Sent:* Friday, March 16, 2012 10:19 AM\n *Subject:* Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es)\n\n Try some of his short stories and novellas:\n\n Photogen and Nycteris (aka Day Boy & Night Girl, aka Son\n of the Day, Daughter of Night)\n Light Princess (aka Little Daylight)\n Golden Key\n Translations for Novalis\n\n Lewis and MacDonald never met. But Lewis credited\n MacDonald's fiction as an important element in his\n conversion. He (and the reception of his children) were\n important in the publication of Alice in Wonderland.\n Although he was a pastor for a time, his sermons and\n theology got him in trouble and he was eventually pushed out.\n\n J.\n\n On 3/16/2012 8:09 AM, David Stockhoff wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": " I'm not sure which of MacDonald's books I consider\n stilted and boring, although I encountered those as an\n adult. But I loved the Curdie books my mom read to me\n when I was four or five.\n\n On 3/15/2012 10:51 PM, Craig Brewer wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": " Phantastes was a beautiful book! Never besmirch the name\n of MacDonald! heh heh...\n\n As someone who was raised in a relatively a-religious\n family, I usually just ignored the obviously religious\n bits of Lewis/Tolkien/whoever else. But as I got older,\n I found that the non-\"preachy\" manner of fictional\n Christian works actually worked to explain why faith was\n interesting and attractive. After all, here was some\n fantasy that might be real on a certain level, or at\n least a number of people thought so.\n\n That's a perspective I've had trouble explaining to\n friends who had that \"betrayal\" reaction to Narnia.\n\n ------------------------------------------------------------------------\n *From:* David Stockhoff \n " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2012-03-17T10:06:24+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "<4F640E55.2040102@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Photogen and Nycteris is definitely one of the very best. Lilith and\nPhantastes are certainly meandering and oblique novels - but I think\nthey're very powerful, undiluted fantasies - he taps into some deep\nmythopoiea and faerie in these in my opinion - lots of great individual\nscenes and elements too - plenty of creatures and not a little horror also\n- he's always struck me as a phantasmagorical Poe. I'd like to see whether\ntheir's a connection to Wolfe at all, either overtly or unintentionally.\n\n-DOJP" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 4:08 AM, David Stockhoff wrote:\n Just for the record, I can't find the \"dull\" MacDonald story I thought I\nwas looking for, and I can only guess it's buried among the many ebook\ncollections of his fiction on my old hard drive.\n\nBut *Lilith *certainly fits the bill, and *Phantastes *is not far behind.\nNo worse than William Morris, though.\n\n*Photgen and Nycteris *is one of my favorites, along with several others\nI can't locate at the moment.\n\nOn 3/16/2012 4:32 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote:\n\n I plan to read it to my daughter when she's old enough---in a year or\ntwo. That's why I collected all the MacDonald I have, though there was a\nselfish motivation as well.\n\n I have to apologize for shocking everyone, however. It wasn't The Golden\nKey I was thinking of at all. Had I read that as a child I might recall it\nmore clearly than I did in fact---probably as much as Curdie---but I\nenjoyed it nevertheless.\n\n I am not sure which story it was that struck me as stilted and dull,\nonly that the protagonist was a girl. But I shouldn't venture to opine\nuntil I get back home and find the physical books.\n\n Auden is amazing---no, not dull at all. But then he never wrote stories\nfor children, or did he?\n\n ------------------------------\n*From:* Daniel Petersen \n*To:* The Urth Mailing List \n*Sent:* Friday, March 16, 2012 3:30 PM\n*Subject:* Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es)\n\nI really enjoy the edition where it's printed as its own small book, with\nillustrations by Maurice Sendak and an afterword by W. H. Auden. (And I'll\nside with Auden over Stockhoff as to the story and its author's worth - but\nmaybe the Stock finds Auden dull as well? [If so only further proving my\ntheory that he is inhuman.])\n\n You know, I actually first read that edition aloud to my daughter when\nshe was 5 or 6 and that was the go that really bowled me over. David, do\nyou know of any bairns you can read it aloud to?\n\n (Does anyone have experiences reading Wolfe aloud? I've never done\nthat, I don't think. Lafferty gains whole new dimensions when you do it\nwith him - I wonder what it would be like with Wolfe. I picture it being\nmore of a reading to fellow adults scenario, rather than to children.)\n\n -DOJP\n\nOn Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Antonin Scriabin <\nkierkegaurdian at gmail.com> wrote:\n\nThe Golden Key was a favorite of mine growing up. I wish I could find my\ncopy!\n\nOn Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Daniel Petersen <\ndanielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:\n\nNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's the BEST! You have no\nsoul! You are not human, you are machine!\n\n (To be honest, it was on a second read that it blew me away.)\n\n -DOJP\n\n\nOn Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:11 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote:\n\n Golden Key: THAT's the one. Dull, dull, dull, dull, dull.\n\n ;)\n\n ------------------------------\n*From:* James Wynn \n*To:* The Urth Mailing List \n*Sent:* Friday, March 16, 2012 10:19 AM\n*Subject:* Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es)\n\n Try some of his short stories and novellas:\n\nPhotogen and Nycteris (aka Day Boy & Night Girl, aka Son of the Day,\nDaughter of Night)\nLight Princess (aka Little Daylight)\nGolden Key\nTranslations for Novalis\n\nLewis and MacDonald never met. But Lewis credited MacDonald's fiction as\nan important element in his conversion. He (and the reception of his\nchildren) were important in the publication of Alice in Wonderland.\nAlthough he was a pastor for a time, his sermons and theology got him in\ntrouble and he was eventually pushed out.\n\nJ.\n\nOn 3/16/2012 8:09 AM, David Stockhoff wrote:\n\nI'm not sure which of MacDonald's books I consider stilted and boring,\nalthough I encountered those as an adult. But I loved the Curdie books my\nmom read to me when I was four or five.\n\nOn 3/15/2012 10:51 PM, Craig Brewer wrote:\n\n Phantastes was a beautiful book! Never besmirch the name of MacDonald!\nheh heh...\n\n As someone who was raised in a relatively a-religious family, I usually\njust ignored the obviously religious bits of Lewis/Tolkien/whoever else.\nBut as I got older, I found that the non-\"preachy\" manner of fictional\nChristian works actually worked to explain why faith was interesting and\nattractive. After all, here was some fantasy that might be real on a\ncertain level, or at least a number of people thought so.\n\n That's a perspective I've had trouble explaining to friends who had that\n\"betrayal\" reaction to Narnia.\n\n ------------------------------\n*From:* David Stockhoff " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4F64B35F.5090101@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2012-03-17T15:53:03+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lupiverse(es)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The Victorians link the older, anonymous tales with the modern writers. \nWe would have little today without them---not Wilde, Dunsany, Lewis, or \nTolkien. I don't see much of them at their worst in Wolfe, but at their \nbest---without a doubt." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/17/2012 6:06 AM, Daniel Petersen wrote:\nPhotogen and Nycteris is definitely one of the very best. Lilith and \nPhantastes are certainly meandering and oblique novels - but I think \nthey're very powerful, undiluted fantasies - he taps into some deep \nmythopoiea and faerie in these in my opinion - lots of great \nindividual scenes and elements too - plenty of creatures and not a \nlittle horror also - he's always struck me as a phantasmagorical Poe. \n I'd like to see whether their's a connection to Wolfe at all, either \novertly or unintentionally.\n\n-DOJP\n\nOn Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 4:08 AM, David Stockhoff \n> wrote:\n\n Just for the record, I can't find the \"dull\" MacDonald story I\n thought I was looking for, and I can only guess it's buried among\n the many ebook collections of his fiction on my old hard drive.\n\n But /Lilith /certainly fits the bill, and /Phantastes /is not far\n behind. No worse than William Morris, though.\n\n /Photgen and Nycteris /is one of my favorites, along with several\n others I can't locate at the moment.\n\n On 3/16/2012 4:32 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": " I plan to read it to my daughter when she's old enough---in a\n year or two. That's why I collected all the MacDonald I have,\n though there was a selfish motivation as well.\n\n I have to apologize for shocking everyone, however. It wasn't The\n Golden Key I was thinking of at all. Had I read that as a child I\n might recall it more clearly than I did in fact---probably as\n much as Curdie---but I enjoyed it nevertheless.\n\n I am not sure which story it was that struck me as stilted and\n dull, only that the protagonist was a girl. But I shouldn't\n venture to opine until I get back home and find the physical books.\n\n Auden is amazing---no, not dull at all. But then he never wrote\n stories for children, or did he?\n\n ------------------------------------------------------------------------\n *From:* Daniel Petersen \n \n *To:* The Urth Mailing List \n \n *Sent:* Friday, March 16, 2012 3:30 PM\n *Subject:* Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es)\n\n I really enjoy the edition where it's printed as its own small\n book, with illustrations by Maurice Sendak and an afterword by W.\n H. Auden. (And I'll side with Auden over Stockhoff as to the\n story and its author's worth - but maybe the Stock finds Auden\n dull as well? [If so only further proving my theory that he is\n inhuman.])\n\n You know, I actually first read that edition aloud to my daughter\n when she was 5 or 6 and that was the go that really bowled me\n over. David, do you know of any bairns you can read it aloud to?\n\n (Does anyone have experiences reading Wolfe aloud? I've never\n done that, I don't think. Lafferty gains whole new dimensions\n when you do it with him - I wonder what it would be like with\n Wolfe. I picture it being more of a reading to fellow adults\n scenario, rather than to children.)\n\n -DOJP\n\n On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Antonin Scriabin\n > wrote:\n\n The Golden Key was a favorite of mine growing up. I wish I\n could find my copy!\n\n On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Daniel Petersen\n > wrote:\n\n NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's the\n BEST! You have no soul! You are not human, you are\n machine!\n\n (To be honest, it was on a second read that it blew me away.)\n\n -DOJP\n\n\n On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:11 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF\n >\n wrote:\n\n Golden Key: THAT's the one. Dull, dull, dull, dull,\n dull.\n\n ;)\n\n ------------------------------------------------------------------------\n *From:* James Wynn >\n *To:* The Urth Mailing List >\n *Sent:* Friday, March 16, 2012 10:19 AM\n *Subject:* Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es)\n\n Try some of his short stories and novellas:\n\n Photogen and Nycteris (aka Day Boy & Night Girl, aka\n Son of the Day, Daughter of Night)\n Light Princess (aka Little Daylight)\n Golden Key\n Translations for Novalis\n\n Lewis and MacDonald never met. But Lewis credited\n MacDonald's fiction as an important element in his\n conversion. He (and the reception of his children)\n were important in the publication of Alice in\n Wonderland. Although he was a pastor for a time, his\n sermons and theology got him in trouble and he was\n eventually pushed out.\n\n J.\n\n On 3/16/2012 8:09 AM, David Stockhoff wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": " I'm not sure which of MacDonald's books I consider\n stilted and boring, although I encountered those as\n an adult. But I loved the Curdie books my mom read\n to me when I was four or five.\n\n On 3/15/2012 10:51 PM, Craig Brewer wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": " Phantastes was a beautiful book! Never besmirch the\n name of MacDonald! heh heh...\n\n As someone who was raised in a relatively\n a-religious family, I usually just ignored the\n obviously religious bits of Lewis/Tolkien/whoever\n else. But as I got older, I found that the\n non-\"preachy\" manner of fictional Christian works\n actually worked to explain why faith was\n interesting and attractive. After all, here was\n some fantasy that might be real on a certain level,\n or at least a number of people thought so.\n\n That's a perspective I've had trouble explaining to\n friends who had that \"betrayal\" reaction to Narnia.\n\n ------------------------------------------------------------------------\n *From:* David Stockhoff \n " } ] } ] }