(urth) Lupiverse(es)

[Daniel Petersen]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  It's the BEST!  You have no
soul!  You are not human, you are machine!

(To be honest, it was on a second read that it blew me away.)

-DOJP

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:11 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF <dstockhoff at verizon.net>wrote:

> Golden Key: THAT's the one. Dull, dull, dull, dull, dull.
>
> ;)
>
>   ------------------------------
> *From:* James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
> *To:* The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
> *Sent:* Friday, March 16, 2012 10:19 AM
> *Subject:* Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es)
>
>  Try some of his short stories and novellas:
>
> Photogen and Nycteris (aka Day Boy & Night Girl, aka Son of the Day,
> Daughter of Night)
> Light Princess (aka Little Daylight)
> Golden Key
> Translations for Novalis
>
> Lewis and MacDonald never met. But Lewis credited MacDonald's fiction as
> an important element in his conversion. He (and the reception of his
> children) were important in the publication of Alice in Wonderland.
> Although he was a pastor for a time, his sermons and theology got him in
> trouble and he was eventually pushed out.
>
> J.
>
> On 3/16/2012 8:09 AM, David Stockhoff wrote:
>
> I'm not sure which of MacDonald's books I consider stilted and boring,
> although I encountered those as an adult. But I loved the Curdie books my
> mom read to me when I was four or five.
>
> On 3/15/2012 10:51 PM, Craig Brewer wrote:
>
>  Phantastes was a beautiful book! Never besmirch the name of MacDonald!
> heh heh...
>
>  As someone who was raised in a relatively a-religious family, I usually
> just ignored the obviously religious bits of Lewis/Tolkien/whoever else.
> But as I got older, I found that the non-"preachy" manner of fictional
> Christian works actually worked to explain why faith was interesting and
> attractive. After all, here was some fantasy that might be real on a
> certain level, or at least a number of people thought so.
>
>  That's a perspective I've had trouble explaining to friends who had that
> "betrayal" reaction to Narnia.
>
>    ------------------------------
> *From:* David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net> <dstockhoff at verizon.net>
> *To:* The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> <urth at lists.urth.net>
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 15, 2012 9:42 PM
> *Subject:* Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es)
>
> On 3/15/2012 10:32 PM, 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/adf415b7/attachment-0004.htm>