- Mar 29, 2005David,
While not John (not that anyone could confuse the two of us), I share his fondness for Lud-in-the-Mist. The first time I read it (many, many years ago), I found it somewhat coy and sugary myself. So your reaction doesn't surprise me, although it sounds like reading the book was a more negative experience for you than it was for me. The second time I read it (and I don't entirely remember the reasons that led me to read it again), I found that Mirrlees portrayal of Faerie had a subtle, dark undertone to it. I finished the novel thinking that however one viewed Mirrlees's presentation of Faerie, it was a realm that was decidedly alien, decidely OTHER. That's a feeling that I don't have very often with much modern fantasy.
I also found the main character, Nathaniel Chanticleer, very much of an "every day" main character...a normal, workmanlike person who finds himself in situations that demand substantive and real growth. That sort of growth in a character is something that I don't find so often with much modern fantasy.
Just my two cents on the topic...
(who is also overjoyed that the book has been republished)
From: David Bratman [mailto:dbratman@...]
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Joy, great joy
John - want to talk about why you love Lud-in-the-Mist so? I found it
overly coy and sugary myself.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>