Burn Witch Burn is crud. Creep, Shadow is a sequel of sorts, and worth reading.

Kipling Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > -----
> > Knygatin Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
> > > -----
> > > Knygatin Wrote:
> > >
> --------------------------------------------------
> > > > -----
> > > > Knygatin Wrote:
> > > >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WOW, The Ship of Ishtar has much improved!
> > > >
> >
> > > Did I really say that?!! God, this is one
> > > boring book!
> >
> > Things are stirring again, by God!
>
> Yes, it is probably Merritt's masterpiece because
> of the metaphysical symbolism, ...


Yes, I can see now what you mean. A masterpiece of sorts. This book was nothing like I had expected. Aside from a few poignant details, it has very little of visual beauty. Written in the way of telling us of something, rather than actually showing it to us (the recommended way of writing is usually the opposite way around). You have to make your own effort, if you want to carry some vivid images with you from this book. But yes, the second half of the book is much improved, and the ending is even spectacular (and I am almost glad the insufferable romance abruptly ended the way it did).

It is really all about metaphysical symbolism (with repetitive use of light and darkness), largely of abstract existential concerns (mainly good and evil), and with the rather awkward prose, some of it awful, this makes it a demanding read indeed. Calls for your uttermost endurance, and concentration, or else it will just pass by like rubbish nonsense and you will fall asleep over the book. But sometimes the prose sparkles brilliantly.

I am surprised by some of these, so dark philosophical visions coming from A. Merritt, being almost a precursor to Ligotti. Like the drunken king who laughingly and without hesitation deals out death to his most beloved subjects (because living is suffering), and lets those he is displeased with continue to live. That is probably the most memorable scene in the book.

And some of the fight scenes are even more brutal and bloody than those told in R. E. Howard's stories, although not as fulfilling.

The different levels in the ziggurat temple were almost Dunsanian in scope, but lacking that writer's singing prose.

But yea, I think I brought along with me some points of wisdom from this book.

I'd say Merritt is essential reading for fantasists, but not for literary critics.

My guess is that Merritt's spirit is living in Valhalla now.

Quote:

K:
I'd say Merritt is essential reading for fantasists, but not for literary critics.

I think this is a very insightful distinction.

Thanks!

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Knygatin Wrote:

> Aside from a few poignant details, it has very
> little of visual beauty. Written in the way of
> telling us of something, rather than actually
> showing it to us (the recommended way of writing
> is usually the opposite way around).

I think the adage “Show, don’t tell” does not refer to describing visuals, but rather to demonstrating to the reader thinks like relationships between characters by means of dialogue et cetera instead of simply stating “John and Mary hated each other”. “Dramatise, don’t verbalise” might be another way of putting it.

Avoosl Wuthoqquan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the adage “Show, don’t tell” does
> not refer to describing visuals, but rather to
> demonstrating to the reader things like
> relationships between characters by means of
> dialogue et cetera instead of simply stating
> “John and Mary hated each other”.
> “Dramatise, don’t verbalise” might be
> another way of putting it.

I think it perhaps does both, depending on the intentions of the writer.

I think he was very good enough of the time to sustain a reputation as a major fantasist. But he was pretty uneven too. He could be sloppy and pulpy. One doesn't like to judge. I think REH was more a consistent writer of decent prose, in his fantasy works. I'm not saying he took time to be a real artist like Dunsany or CAS. The Moon Pool is very good--and then bad--and then good--and then bad...and then...It's a mixed bag. But it has great imagery in it. I think Clark Ashton Smith is the most consistently good, and one of the most powerful writers of fantasy imagery...My favorite is the best of Vance...

Minicthulhu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have never heard of H. Rider Haggard. Did he
> write any short horror or weird fiction?

How did I, apparently, overlook this?

Haggard mostly worked in the book-length mode, writing adventure romances with weird elements, most famously in She, where the weird elements are particularly pronounced. They’re there in King Solomon’s Mines and most of the others I’ve read too — around 25 of them. Nearly all of Haggard is available online, I believe. He’s known for African adventures (he’d really lived there) but also wrote an Icelandic story I can recommend, in which the preternatural elements of the sagas are amped up. It’s called Eric Brighteyes, which is perhaps unfortunate!