First published in If in March 1962, “Seven-Day Terror” is one of Lafferty’s better-known stories. This is Lafferty at his clearest, celebrating domestic chaos with one fixed idea: the family is stronger I like them a lot, so I thought I’d post the notes and graphs I made while thinking about them.

For months, I have wanted to write about some remarks Lafferty made to Robert Sirignano concerning the Lafferty did believe in devils, so he didn’t treat them as monsters, but as devils. Now seems like the right moment to bring it in, especially because it opens onto the oceanic, Lafferty “I believe in the Devil,” said Lafferty at a convention. “He’s right here in this room.” It is a significant part of the totality of Lafferty. (p. 164–166).

.” — Stan Musial Lafferty’s unpublished 1958 short story “The All-Star Series” is slight, though it touches on themes dear to Lafferty: tradition vs. sterile progress, the letter vs. the spirit of the law, nostalgia Lafferty then switches to the official box. Lafferty was a fan of baseball and baseball pitches, using the trope several times in his short stories Sixteen years after Lafferty wrote “The All-Star Series,” Major League Baseball did abandon horsehide

Lafferty leaves open whether Vincent comes into the gift that does conquer death. Lafferty is playing an interesting game in this story. Lafferty leaves it open for you, dear reader, to decide. Lafferty, therefore, stresses the limits of language in speaking about eternity. When talking about time, Lafferty always has St.

In my understanding of how Lafferty’s fiction fits together, I group his otherwise uncategorizable genre novels under the term "Oceanic Novels," adapting one of Lafferty's terms. The novels are oceanic because the low mimetic cannot carry the eschatological intensity that Lafferty What I recently referred to as the Big Egg Problem attempts to specify the writerly challenge Lafferty In a note on the story, Lafferty explained that it was based on a series of dreams he had experienced

“In Our Block” is one of Lafferty’s lighter stories, written in his 1960s amuse-bouche mode. One of the best moments is when Lafferty's go-to lager, the king of beers, gets disrespected. This could be Lafferty having fun with the “measurement problem” in quantum mechanics. In a 1940 review of Sweeny’s Armageddon II, Lafferty has a fictional critic write: “For us, the most Of that period, Lafferty writes: “And there was the constant wealth that was clogging everything.

Speedster critics like David Langford are going to get the right elbow from the real Lafferty. Aurelia teaches the reader to stop decoding Lafferty downward and start receiving Lafferty upward. Chesterton’s The Ball and the Cross, and Lafferty is a Chesterton fan). All part of Lafferty’s point. It isn’t his fault that people forgot the grammar of Revelation. while that idea was as much one of Lafferty’s starting points for the plot as the tenth-grade assignment—you

. — Archipelago When Lafferty titled his translations, he chose Vogelsprachenkund, a word that appears That is one place to find the Romanticist in Lafferty. For Lafferty, the phrase carried the music of sacramentality. Lafferty's translation.

A short post today on Lafferty’s “The Doggone Highly Scientific Door.” Lafferty makes most of us laugh. This is a story that makes me laugh more than once. Lafferty dials up the slapstick. When the Lafferty family left Neola, Iowa, for Oklahoma, Lafferty was four. Along the way, Lafferty also slips in some great puns.

This is a fun purchase: an edition of the Grolier books that Hugh Lafferty bought for his son. It is fascinating for those interested in ethno-essentialism as Lafferty learned it.

She is one of the sharpest observers of what is happening, and Lafferty clearly cares for her. On this point, the Sheryl Smith–Lafferty correspondence is interesting. Mary Brandy Manx has taken the Lafferty position. How can one not read this as Lafferty joking about his own thousands of characters? But Lafferty thinks that world is gone.

Lafferty is pretty divisive among readers, probably more so today than half a century ago: either you In the case of Lafferty it’s mainly because he’s Quirky™ that he has a love-him-or-hate-him reputation Lafferty wrote the story after the April 1, 1960, census, and there is a relevant scriptural sidelight But Lafferty is laughing at the dumb reader who does not see the instrumental perversity of quantifying Now, the story does not make these politics the whole point—Lafferty never does that—but consider some