Search Results

That kind of cultural amnesia deeply troubled Lafferty. Why was this particular image on Lafferty’s mind in the late sixties? One might wonder where Lafferty got the idea. Lafferty did not overlook it. It’s a helpful way to describe how Lafferty breaks categories open.

Another of Lafferty’s parables about being and nothingness. in 1962 and then reworked, making it one of the first instances of privation as hungry maw, a major Lafferty It says that while men are mortal, they will always need a partner. This is a primitive version of the privation trope that Lafferty will explore until he ceases writing I suspect that is one of Lafferty’s etymological games just as KLM is, for KLM looks like a Hebrew joke

Here’s Lafferty putting him on blast. Lafferty loves to do this, sometimes far more subtly.

Kevin Cheek sometimes says that “Through Other Eyes” is Lafferty’s perfect science fiction story. It is one of Lafferty’s earliest thought experiments about the relation between machine and person. If people begin to think more deeply about the relationship between Lafferty and AI, it will play an Trotz knows that’s time enough, because the aliens are landing in one of Lafferty’s early apocalypses Lafferty flags it for the reader as being relevant to the inquiry: "How know? Per se ? A se?

As far as the Lafferty fan community goes, this game is all but done. Lafferty  (2021) tried to play the game well and screwed it up by not tapping into the fan community. Of course, I see why "Nine Hundred Grandmothers" is considered one of Lafferty’s best and most memorable But if people asked me what to read to get to know Lafferty, they’d run up against my nasty case of not wanting to play the “Best of” version of the how-to-introduce-people-to-Lafferty game.

I was surprised to discover that Lafferty had rewritten the movie. This is where Lafferty most clearly echoes The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance . Perhaps that’s because it’s easy to overlook how brilliantly Lafferty has inverted its structure. Lafferty rewrites the American myth of the West, taking it straight out of John Ford’s hands and re-enchanting When Lafferty's novel ends, he has completely solved The Stoddard Problem .

Early on, when Lafferty was considering how he would use the Watkin material that would eventually find He is called “the man of a kaleidoscope,” and then Lafferty shows us why, laying color upon color in

Advanced Lafferty: "The Rod and the Ring."  Lafferty told Hirushi Inoue that he had read several of Wittgenstein’s works. the weird box The Rod and the Ring  game arrives in, which I take to be Prime or, here perhaps, the whole As I have argued, Prime in Lafferty is characterized by what philosophers call underdetermination.

question Chris Merrick asked on East of Laughter , I’ve been cataloguing the changes made when moving Lafferty's One significant, if minor, persistent change is Lafferty’s correction regarding Australopithecus , which I’m curious whether Lafferty caught this himself or if someone pointed it out to him, and whether that

Advanced Lafferty. Active, Not Passive: Lafferty calls him a "vortex." This makes him volitional and predatory.

Chapters in a Lafferty novel are always half misleading because he thinks in subchapters, episodes that They are devils—but devils in Lafferty are tricky things. This approach reflects a view that Lafferty put in the following way: “Leaving aside all testimony of Lafferty even defines their three functions, which are under-discussed.   Lafferty refuses to do this. Instead, he steps back.

While enjoying it, I’ve been thinking about metaphor and the way Lafferty uses it. Of all Lafferty’s novels, Arrive at Easterwine  is probably his most metaphorically difficult. Humans do not literally see only one-sixtieth of reality, but Lafferty’s concept of strobe vision is , especially in its  sexual dimension,  which is tied up with Lafferty’s fixation on precocity and on Because people tend to treat metaphor as inherently propositional and disguised, and because Lafferty