I’ve been thinking about “Camels and Dromedaries, Clem,” one of my favorite Lafferty stories. Years later, when Veronica discovers the original Clem, she insists the two must reunite to become a whole I disagree—and I think Lafferty’s story shows why he disagreed. Lafferty hints at this, but he doesn’t want the reader to go entirely in this direction. In contrast, Veronica's intuitive, Non-Reductionist demand to restore the "whole man" is Lafferty’s voice

This whole great-man fantasy, with the Axis leaders playing the role of great men in one character's Lafferty says they died. Then Lafferty says they did not, because he gives us a second ending. More important for understanding Lafferty as a whole is the first proposition, so a few words about it in Lafferty’s invitation to create new worlds, as if one could do so while cleaving off the intensity of Lafferty’s religious views.

On August 8, 1971, a book by Lafferty received a rare notice in The New York Times Book Review. Taken as a whole, the Coscuin novels constitute a major work, worthy of being set alongside Argo and Lafferty’s Grolier set depicted Carlism as “Reaction Triumphant in the Latin States.” That would give a reader some context for what Lafferty is doing. Lafferty rejects it by having Dana move toward the Green Revolution.

Watkin, and how did Lafferty come to be interested in him? Lafferty and Hans Urs von Balthasar. Lafferty plays with this reversal. literalises Watkin’s fear and hope: machines can knit society, or swallow it whole. While Lafferty avoids overt didacticism, he shares Watkin’s conviction that didactic art is justified

Lafferty turns this on its head. A whole cosmos of maggotty cheese, turned green in its taint and rot. And the eggshells! Lafferty,' or maybe better, 'as conveyed to R. A. Lafferty.'" Lafferty, in a paratext, explains that Epiktistes is the true author of the novel. Arrive at Easterwine is one of the novels where Lafferty doesn’t talk about demiurges.

Lafferty returns often to the idea of privation as a threat to the person. To make it work, Lafferty came up with the image of the thieving bear. But in Lafferty, this is a fascinating image. In the fragment, Lafferty explores variations on the interaction problem. I’ll end by saying that this is one of Lafferty’s scarier stories.

Aurelia is another of Lafferty's novels featuring devils and a demonic conspiracy. Hoffmannian mode, no doubt because so much of Hoffmann is so Lafferty adjacent. Lafferty associates yin-yang with the New Age counterculture. To the Christian imagination, the claim that good needs evil in order to be whole is not wisdom but a Lafferty’s Augustinian formation shows here.

Altogether, it is one of the strangest Lafferty documents that I have read. By the end, Lafferty tells us that a narcotic has changed the world. Then Lafferty writes, "And the question is not settled." Lafferty doesn’t explain much about it. Lafferty demolished it to write the novel we know.

Lafferty completed "Horns on Their Heads" in June 1971, though even that date feels late. There is much to admire here: Lafferty’s verbal brilliance is in full force, and the story offers an This time, Lafferty gives us the Free Monitored World. Lafferty works—a technique that throws light on how he triumphs or falters. This is brilliant because Lafferty isn’t merely adapting a biblical story.

whose relevance to the structure of Lafferty’s thought is hard to dismiss. Even setting aside Lafferty’s Holocaust denial, I would disagree. Too often, Lafferty readers abandon puzzles in his work that, while difficult, nevertheless incline toward I call this secular quarantine because I believe it misinterprets Lafferty's religious motivation while In other words, Lafferty shoots himself in the foot.

Lafferty. But there he is. Having now read both books, I think Lafferty read them, even though Lafferty's sense of the timeline It seems clear that, taking English history as a whole, the conditions of rural life have, from the present I think we can now sketch the whole idea. A précis might go like this . . . same level of intelligence from person to person, barring intellectual defect, and the species as a whole

Paul Saka’s article on “Been a Long, Long Time” (1966/1970) argues that Lafferty’s target in that story Lafferty leaves it up to the reader to infer where Darwin ends up. Why did Lafferty abandon this one? Who knows. If the story is right, then a whole lot of Catholics would have been complicit with the morning stars As for Lafferty and Darwin, it is both uncomplicated and very complicated.