Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Lud-in-the-Mist

Expand Messages
  • Douglas A. Anderson
    ... Masterworks edition (a British paperback edition that I own) doesn t, except for your introduction? There s a foreword by Gaiman in the Fantasy
    Message 1 of 3 , Feb 7, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Wendell Wagner wrote:

      > Does this new edition have anything that the Millennium/Fantasy
      Masterworks
      edition (a British paperback edition that I own) doesn't, except for your
      introduction? There's a foreword by Gaiman in the Fantasy Masterworks
      edition.
      Does the Cold Spring edition have anything different in the text by
      Mirrlees?

      The Gaiman introduction is the same as in the Fantasy Masterworks edition.
      The text of the book in the Fantasy Masterworks edition is merely
      photographed and slightly enlarged from the Ballantine edition (thus is has
      far fewer misprints that some of the other Fantasy Masterworks). For the
      Cold Spring edition I proofed the text line-by-line with the 1926 Collins
      edition. There are only minor variations between it and the Ballantine--
      italics, etc.-- nothing that will concern most readers. Mirrlees ended the
      book with a device of the Great Bear (Big Dipper), which I thought kind of
      nice and restored it. My introduction is a short couple of pages about
      Mirrlees and her other writings.

      Doug A.
    • Fisher, Matt
      David, 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),
      Message 2 of 3 , Mar 29, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        David,

        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...

        Matt Fisher
        (who is also overjoyed that the book has been republished)

        -----Original Message-----
        From: David Bratman [mailto:dbratman@...]
        Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 3:20 PM
        To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
        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.

        DB
      • dianejoy@earthlink.net
        The thing I most remember about *Lud-in-the-Mist* is the villagers fear of anything connected to Faerie. After the MFA madness, I should go back and read
        Message 3 of 3 , Apr 1 6:45 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          The thing I most remember about *Lud-in-the-Mist* is the villagers' fear of
          anything connected to Faerie. After the MFA madness, I should go back and
          read this one again. And faerie didn't seem sugary at all to me. ---djb

          Original Message:
          -----------------
          From: Fisher, Matt matt.fisher@...
          Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:14:38 -0500
          To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [mythsoc] Lud-in-the-Mist



          David,

          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...

          Matt Fisher
          (who is also overjoyed that the book has been republished)

          -----Original Message-----
          From: David Bratman [mailto:dbratman@...]
          Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 3:20 PM
          To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
          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.

          DB



          The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
          Yahoo! Groups Links








          --------------------------------------------------------------------
          mail2web - Check your email from the web at
          http://mail2web.com/ .
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.