About Lafferty’s Holocaust denial, I want to be on record with maximum clarity. Lafferty was a literary genius of unparalleled imagination and insight. R. A. Lafferty was a crank on aspects of conspiratorial history who embraced a grotesque and evil lie. Like Blake, Lafferty has a cosmological imagination. Like Blake, Lafferty was an enemy of Ulro.

Lafferty. In my office at the college, I keep it pinned to a corkboard. Dan Knight is one of the heroes of Lafferty's publication history and one of my favorite people. We would not have many important Lafferty pieces. I believe our best view of Lafferty as a person interacting with other people is the Knight-Lafferty All Lafferty readers owe him a great debt. Which brings me to the reason for this post.

In a Green Tree I continue to reflect on Belloc and to think about the nature of Lafferty's antisemitism offers the following typology: I would characterize Belloc’s antisemitism in the following manner: Lafferty

Lafferty. His sentences are unmistakably his own, his plots dizzying. how much did Lafferty himself share this view? I do think this gets Lafferty backward. If Lafferty is obscure, it is not because he is an obscurantist. There, Lafferty writes of Izzie: He got his car and was on his way.

In the end, his corpus as a whole gave off a sense of teasing incompletion and of secrecy: almost as Imagine I am new to Lafferty. Lafferty used more than nine hundred sources while writing The Fall of Rome, yet he took great care to There is the centripetal Lafferty and the centrifugal Lafferty. totality comes from: (a) this genuine cross-text architecture, plus (b) the fact that only part of the whole

Lafferty makes an exceptionally strong claim here. slightly from Lafferty’s sacramental worldview to his sacramental poesis. This is also why Lafferty immediately brings in the Four Final Things. This is a constant theme in Lafferty. This is why, when a world ends in Lafferty, it isn’t a complete reset.

Advanced Lafferty. What comes next won’t depend on it. A third category will be needed for Lafferty’s novel. Remembering as a process and theme in the Whole Lafferty is centipedal, and Lafferty’s novel is being Lafferty says this, but it is a partial statement. He is not giving an outline of the Summa as a whole.

Sheryl Smith did not write much about Lafferty, but everything she wrote is worth looking at closely.

He rejected its interpretation of Rabelais (“As a whole [Rabelais] exercises a baneful influence”) but How Lafferty understood sacred history as history. Fragments of Belloc show up frequently in Lafferty. Strong evidence that Lafferty knew the volume, in which Belloc’s apologia appeared, and Lafferty embraced A book Lafferty recommended and a clear articulation of his view of utopia, though Lafferty would have

That's the idea of a whole Lafferty that unshackles Lafferty from being a quirky sf/fantasy writer of I call the default Lafferty the weird O. Henry of SF and the cotton-candy Okie. As Lafferty readers know, Lafferty's novel-writing career divides into phases that very loosely track It completes the very important Coscuin sequence that must come out for there to be anything like a Whole Lafferty.

Lafferty's Bricolage Aesthetic," is, in my view, the most incisive piece of Lafferty criticism yet published Lafferty's method resembles bricolage, but only up to a point. Lafferty does something similar. Let's call it bricospolia. The result is a sacramental whole, ordered toward transcendence. The ornaments in Lafferty ultimately reveal a structure and adorn a Person, Lafferty's Laughing Christ

“And Some In Velvet Gowns” is exospheric, as high-concept as Lafferty gets. Yes, this is one of Lafferty’s Gadarene swine songs, closer to St. Lafferty isn’t being subtle. VIII.5.10) Both Lafferty and Augustine depict an intensely spiritual claustrophobia. I do wonder whether this one throws off many non-Christian Lafferty fans.