But they sound a lot like Lafferty. No wonder Lafferty loved it. That is subtle, funny, and very Lafferty. 1. Odyssey and epic vs picaresque, Lafferty’s rhetorical strategy. 11. Lafferty is mocking epic. 36.

A short post about something that does not seem to be recognized by most Lafferty fans, and that seems to me important: the place of the historical fiction in the Lafferty canon. Most people who love Lafferty love Okla Hannali, which was published by Doubleday in 1972, reprinted Lafferty discussed further options in 1979 but declined to write the screenplay himself. This, however, could not be more wrong if one wants to understand Lafferty's development.

Lafferty. It’s a significant and thoughtful contribution. While his account is brilliant and fascinating, it leaves limited room for this dimension of Lafferty Or to quote Lafferty, there are no endings. It can’t end. It also keeps Lafferty a metaphysically realist Christian fabulist whose world-making shows that shattered It supplies a stable hermeneutic spine for reading the whole oeuvre, not just one speech.

Lafferty thought the ordinary novel had come to an end. This has an interesting relevance to Lafferty’s fiction. This connection to irony explains something about Lafferty and Joyce. This is not Lafferty. in the same manner, setting up a few classic Lafferty-style jokes.

His escape route from those constraints turned out to be what he created: the ghost story, the whole Lafferty, what the resources on the blog try to make available to Lafferty readers. Many Lafferty worlds are counterfeit. minds at once or talk coherently about the novels as an interconnected whole. While the previous points concern how Lafferty builds his worlds, this final point concerns what he leaves

Lafferty’s short sentences fascinate me. There is a smart essay online that argues Lafferty breaks the rules by telling instead of showing. Lafferty shows by telling: he uses what Virginia Tufte, in Artful Sentences: Syntax as Style, calls “ One of Lafferty’s signature moves as a writer is to build short sentences using expressive fragmentation They serve as isolating maneuvers that Lafferty uses to build linguistically charged moments of intense

In thinking about Lafferty's denial of the Jewish Holocaust, one of the more curious items in the Tulsa archive is a letter sent to Lafferty by a founding member of the Remnant of Israel. At the time Lafferty received the letter, the small Jewish group was based in central Kentucky. So how did Lafferty come to donate money to the Remnant of Israel? The most likely author of the original letter to Lafferty was Barton himself.

Lafferty saw this as more than reconciliation. Chesterton and Lafferty. This led him to send the first issues to Lafferty. As I have said before, Lafferty did not really debate. Lafferty was scathing. Morris, whom Lafferty seems to have read closely. Lafferty called this “Hebraist-fiction.”

Having read more Lafferty than most people, he brings deep knowledge of the Lafferty archive and a depth On Omitting the “Only Valid Environment” Ferguson’s discussion of Lafferty underplays Lafferty’s insistence On Lafferty as the “Toughest Critic” Ferguson describes Lafferty’s collaborative invitation to fellow Ferguson's Application of Ricoeur to Lafferty Ferguson argues that Lafferty’s Flatlanders can no longer Lafferty’s Theological Non-Negotiable I also think that, for Lafferty, the Incarnation (Redemption) is

Holy Allegory by Giovanni Bellini, Uffizi Galleries Lafferty’s use of allegory is complicated. to depict allegory as a sliding scale: How would this look with a complicated figure like Evita in Lafferty's

The Reefs of Earth (1968) Reading large chunks of Lafferty is anything but straightforward. This method has served me well in studying Lafferty, though it has led to some unexpected consequences—chief Using an Arabian Nights folklore index while reading Lafferty's Sindbad sparked a question: what if there were a Lafferty motif index? Still, I’d love to see a proper Lafferty motif index—and I might try again.

Some notes on Lafferty's planets, especially for those new to Lafferty. Lafferty won't give you anything like that. At some point, Lafferty decided to patch together a universe—one that, to my eye, first really comes Lafferty’s version of planetary romance is to reimagine the Garden of Eden as a con job on the un-catechized In Lafferty’s approach to planetary science fiction, there isn't much concern for seamless canon.