(urth) Lupiverse(es)

[James Wynn]

Try some of his short stories and novellas:

Photogen and Nycteris (aka Day Boy & Night Girl, aka Son of the Day, 
Daughter of Night)
Light Princess (aka Little Daylight)
Golden Key
Translations for Novalis

Lewis and MacDonald never met. But Lewis credited MacDonald's fiction as 
an important element in his conversion. He (and the reception of his 
children) were important in the publication of Alice in Wonderland. 
Although he was a pastor for a time, his sermons and theology got him in 
trouble and he was eventually pushed out.

J.

On 3/16/2012 8:09 AM, David Stockhoff wrote:
> I'm not sure which of MacDonald's books I consider stilted and boring, 
> although I encountered those as an adult. But I loved the Curdie books 
> my mom read to me when I was four or five.
>
> On 3/15/2012 10:51 PM, Craig Brewer wrote:
>> Phantastes was a beautiful book! Never besmirch the name of 
>> MacDonald! heh heh...
>>
>> As someone who was raised in a relatively a-religious family, I 
>> usually just ignored the obviously religious bits of 
>> Lewis/Tolkien/whoever else. But as I got older, I found that the 
>> non-"preachy" manner of fictional Christian works actually worked to 
>> explain why faith was interesting and attractive. After all, here was 
>> some fantasy that might be real on a certain level, or at least a 
>> number of people thought so.
>>
>> That's a perspective I've had trouble explaining to friends who had 
>> that "betrayal" reaction to Narnia.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net>
>> *To:* The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 15, 2012 9:42 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es)
>>
>> On 3/15/2012 10:32 PM, António Pedro Marques wrote:
>> > Wasn't MacDonald a good half century older? And he was one of those 
>> mollified Presbyterians.
>> > But is it fair to criticise didacticism which didn't pretend to be 
>> anything else? I mean, neither MacDonald nor Lewis, that I know of, 
>> tried to present their books as doctrinally free. At least MacDonald 
>> was overt as to their didactic nature. It isn't Lewis's fault if the 
>> Narnia books got popular that they were pushed everywhere as mere 
>> children's books without a caveat that they were had a religious 
>> undercurrent. Maybe the real issue is that they are popular because 
>> that undercurrent pleases people, just as Praise of Empire pleased 
>> others, and those who take exception to that way of writing resent 
>> the popularity.
>>
>> Well, if it's boring, it's boring. And it depends on what you mean by 
>> "didn't pretend"---as with Lewis, most of his readers were children. 
>> If you have no idea what you might be reading, you can't know whether 
>> it's pretense or not.
>>
>> Certainly Lewis wasn't responsible for whatever marketing got his 
>> books in my local library and into my hands. But I doubt they were 
>> and are popular because they are religious: rather, they probably are 
>> popular because they are accessible, imaginative (sometimes magical, 
>> as you said), action-packed, well-written, comforting (Aslan always 
>> appeared to set things right), and morally nonthreatening. Girls read 
>> them as much as boys did, and no parents objected to them.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Urth Mailing List
>> To post, write urth at urth.net <mailto:urth at urth.net>
>> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Urth Mailing List
>> To post, writeurth at urth.net
>> Subscription/information:http://www.urth.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20120316/350504b7/attachment-0004.htm>