(urth) Lupiverse(es)

DAVID STOCKHOFF dstockhoff at verizon.net
Fri Mar 16 10:11:33 PDT 2012


Golden Key: THAT's the one. Dull, dull, dull, dull, dull. 


;)



________________________________
 From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> 
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es)
 

Try some of his short stories and novellas:

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

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

J.

On 3/16/2012 8:09 AM, David Stockhoff wrote: 
I'm not sure which of MacDonald's books I consider stilted and boring, although I encountered those as an adult. But I loved the Curdie books my mom read to me when I was four or five. 
>
>On 3/15/2012 10:51 PM, Craig Brewer wrote: 
>Phantastes was a beautiful book! Never besmirch the name of MacDonald! heh heh...
>>
>>
>>
>>As someone who was raised in a relatively a-religious family, I usually just ignored the obviously religious bits of Lewis/Tolkien/whoever else. But as I got older, I found that the non-"preachy" manner of fictional Christian works actually worked to explain why faith was interesting and attractive. After all, here was some fantasy that might be real on a certain level, or at least a number of people thought so.
>>
>>
>>That's a perspective I've had trouble explaining to friends who had that "betrayal" reaction to Narnia.
>>
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>> From: David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net>
>>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
>>Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
Urth Mailing List
To post, write urth at urth.net Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net 
>
>
>_______________________________________________
Urth Mailing List
To post, write urth at urth.net Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

_______________________________________________
Urth Mailing List
To post, write urth at urth.net
Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20120316/ddbb999a/attachment-0004.htm>


More information about the Urth mailing list