(urth) Lupiverse(es)

Fri Mar 16 12:33:46 PDT 2012

Hhhmmm, the only book I have ever read out loud was *The Crying of Lot
49*by Pynchon.  My copy of
*The Golden Key* I remembering being blue, with gold-looking inlays for the
title, etc., on the cover.  It was very old and pretty.

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Daniel Petersen <
danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:

> I really enjoy the edition where it's printed as its own small book, with
> illustrations by Maurice Sendak and an afterword by W. H. Auden.  (And I'll
> side with Auden over Stockhoff as to the story and its author's worth - but
> maybe the Stock finds Auden dull as well?  [If so only further proving my
> theory that he is inhuman.])
>
> You know, I actually first read that edition aloud to my daughter when she
> was 5 or 6 and that was the go that really bowled me over.  David, do you
> know of any bairns you can read it aloud to?
>
> (Does anyone have experiences reading Wolfe aloud?  I've never done that,
> I don't think.  Lafferty gains whole new dimensions when you do it with him
> - I wonder what it would be like with Wolfe.  I picture it being more of a
> reading to fellow adults scenario, rather than to children.)
>
> -DOJP
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Antonin Scriabin <
> kierkegaurdian at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The Golden Key was a favorite of mine growing up.  I wish I could find my
>> copy!
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Daniel Petersen <
>> danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  It's the BEST!  You have
>>> no soul!  You are not human, you are machine!
>>>
>>> (To be honest, it was on a second read that it blew me away.)
>>>
>>> -DOJP
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:11 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF <dstockhoff at verizon.net
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Golden Key: THAT's the one. Dull, dull, dull, dull, dull.
>>>>
>>>> ;)
>>>>
>>>>   ------------------------------
>>>> *From:* James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
>>>> *To:* The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
>>>> *Sent:* Friday, March 16, 2012 10:19 AM
>>>> *Subject:* Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es)
>>>>
>>>>  Try some of his short stories and novellas:
>>>>
>>>> Photogen and Nycteris (aka Day Boy & Night Girl, aka Son of the Day,
>>>> Daughter of Night)
>>>> Light Princess (aka Little Daylight)
>>>> Golden Key
>>>> Translations for Novalis
>>>>
>>>> Lewis and MacDonald never met. But Lewis credited MacDonald's fiction
>>>> as an important element in his conversion. He (and the reception of his
>>>> children) were important in the publication of Alice in Wonderland.
>>>> Although he was a pastor for a time, his sermons and theology got him in
>>>> trouble and he was eventually pushed out.
>>>>
>>>> J.
>>>>
>>>> On 3/16/2012 8:09 AM, David Stockhoff wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure which of MacDonald's books I consider stilted and boring,
>>>> although I encountered those as an adult. But I loved the Curdie books my
>>>> mom read to me when I was four or five.
>>>>
>>>> On 3/15/2012 10:51 PM, Craig Brewer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  Phantastes was a beautiful book! Never besmirch the name of
>>>> MacDonald! heh heh...
>>>>
>>>>  As someone who was raised in a relatively a-religious family, I
>>>> usually just ignored the obviously religious bits of Lewis/Tolkien/whoever
>>>> else. But as I got older, I found that the non-"preachy" manner of
>>>> fictional Christian works actually worked to explain why faith was
>>>> interesting and attractive. After all, here was some fantasy that might be
>>>> real on a certain level, or at least a number of people thought so.
>>>>
>>>>  That's a perspective I've had trouble explaining to friends who had
>>>> that "betrayal" reaction to Narnia.
>>>>
>>>>    ------------------------------
>>>> *From:* David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net><dstockhoff at verizon.net>
>>>> *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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/a9b38213/attachment-0004.htm>