Yes, I wonder if A. Merritt was the ruling king of romantic fantasy. And other top writers, such as Burroughs, Lovecraft, Smith, Vance, Tolkien, have to settle as princes, standing at the side and below Merritt's inaccessible throne.

I base this assumption not on rational thought, and not from an analysis of Merritt's technical proficiencies compared to the others. But on my hunches, intangible hunches. Merritt seemed to have the most dreaming and essentially romantic imagination of all fantasists. Without cynical planning of the intellect. He seemed to be completely abandoned to fantasy, having turned his soul and body over. He had the kernel of fantasy in his hand. Therefore he may have been the greatest. Others have had more original, technically developed ideas, but to some extent used a rational calculating intellect and cynical planning to reach that level. He did not. He WAS his imagination. And, at the height of his creativity, wrote it down in a purified, uncorrupted, faery trance, tuned in to its very most inner and subtle qualities.

So, in all fairness, perhaps it should have been Merritt who have a rabid following, whose works are famous, and inevitably are turned into movies and merchandize? Why is it not so? Perhaps because of the natural stupidity of mankind, their coarse mentality, and inability to see the forest for all the trees, their inability to appreciate genuine qualities.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, I wonder if A. Merritt was the ruling king of
> romantic fantasy. And other top writers, such as
> Burroughs, Lovecraft, Smith, Vance, Tolkien, have
> to settle as princes, standing at the side and
> below Merritt's inaccessible throne.
>
> I base this assumption not on rational thought,
> and not from an analysis of Merritt's technical
> proficiencies compared to the others. But on my
> hunches, intangible hunches. Merritt seemed to
> have the most dreaming and essentially romantic
> imagination of all fantasists. Without cynical
> planning of the intellect. He seemed to be
> completely abandoned to fantasy, having turned his
> soul and body over. He had the kernel of fantasy
> in his hand. Therefore he may have been the
> greatest. Others have had more original,
> technically developed ideas, but to some extent
> used a rational calculating intellect and cynical
> planning to reach that level. He did not. He WAS
> his imagination. And, at the height of his
> creativity, wrote it down in a purified,
> uncorrupted, faery trance, tuned in to its very
> most inner and subtle qualities.
>
> So, in all fairness, perhaps it should have been
> Merritt who have a rabid following, whose works
> are famous, and inevitably are turned into movies
> and merchandize? Why is it not so? Perhaps because
> of the natural stupidity of mankind, their coarse
> mentality, and inability to see the forest for all
> the trees, their inability to appreciate genuine
> qualities.

That would be one possible explanation.

Another possible explanation that springs readily to mind is that he was not as good at conveying these ideas with the clarity and artistry that some of the others achieved, and hence developed a smaller following.

A third explanation involves the Illuminati, and the fine hand of the Pope, as he sits on his throne in The Vatican; this is the explanation that I favor, personally.

--Sawfish

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

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Another possible explanation that springs readily
> to mind is that he was not as good at conveying
> these ideas with the clarity and artistry that
> some of the others achieved, and hence developed a
> smaller following.

Yes, that is a sad factor. Some of his prose could be better, or more distilled. Again, this was what I meant by people's inability to see the forest for all the trees.


> A third explanation involves the Illuminati, and
> the fine hand of the Pope, as he sits on his
> throne in The Vatican; this is the explanation
> that I favor, personally.

Hmm, this sounds a bit ..., I don't know what. Off topic perhaps. If you would care to elaborate more on what you mean in the general Super thread, I am willing to contemplate it.

.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 16 Oct 20 | 04:26PM by Knygatin.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... Some of his prose could
> be better, or more distilled.

But on the other hand, the book versions of some of the novels he is famous for were heavily cut. At least The Metal Monster and The Face in the Abyss/The Snake Mother were, I don't know about the others. Which made them choppy and much inferior to the original texts, to an extent even incomprehensible.

I am trying to find a quote by Brian Stableford about The Face In the Abyss, in which he said that the book version is awful and lacking, while the original magazine version is a very fine work. I couldn't agree more. Merritt needed the prose to flesh out his atmospheric ideas; but apparently the editors thought not.

I really only know Abraham Merritt for two works - The Dragon Glass which features in The Young Magicians (an anthology already mentioned here) and which is a pulp classic, imo. The second work is Burn Witch Burn which I never read but which formed the basis for a favourite film of mine - The Devil Doll, also a classic of its kind.

I have read only his short stories (almost all of them) and though I enjoyed most of them I do not think thery are any better than what Mr. Merritt‘s colleagues of the genre (Hodgson, Blackwood, Lovecraft, Machen, Doyle, Smith, Howard and many others) wrote. Some years ago I started to read "The Face In The Abyss" but never finished the book; it did not appealed to me too much. Nevertheless, one of these days I am going to read (at last) "The Metal Monster" I have been reading so many good reviews about over the years.

Minicthulhu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nevertheless, one of these days I am going to read
> (at last) "The Metal Monster" I have been reading
> so many good reviews about over the years.

Good luck with that. And as always, try avoid having pre-expectations.

In a long reading life, I've read Dwellers in the Mirage, The Ship of Ishtar, "The Woman of the Wood," his bit of "The Challenge from Beyond," and "Through the Dragon Glass" (yep, in The Young Magicians) at least, and perhaps one or both versions of The Moon Pool. I wouldn't mind reading or rereading something by him, but he has never been one of my indispensables. I've preferred Rider Haggard for adventure fiction.

Cathbad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Burn Witch Burn which I never read but which
> formed the basis for a favourite film of mine -
> The Devil Doll, also a classic of its kind.

I have seen that film, but don't remember much from it other than it being quite creepy and having some fine settings. The miniature aspect is similar to the film Dr. Cyclops. Dr. Cyclops is a film I enjoy foremost for its lush colours.

I have not read Burn Witch Burn! either (nor its sequel Creep Shadow!), from his later period. And I have not read Seven Footprints to Satan. I have focused on the books that have clear fantasy settings.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've preferred Rider Haggard for adventure fiction.

I have not read H. Rider Haggard. But I will try to set aside time to read She and The People of the Mist.

I have never heard of H. Rider Haggard. Did he write any short horror or weird fiction?

It is easy, by way of rational argument, to say that other fantasy writers are better than Merritt. And smash him down. But my suggestion that he may be the greatest, rests on more subtle reasons, that go beyond literature, and which it is very difficult for me to put my finger on. It concerns the particular quality of Merritt's soul and attitude and the wholesome purity of his dreamy rich imagination. Perhaps someone else has been better able to describe it in words.

Here are a few quotes from Brian Stableford's essay about A. Merritt in St. James Guide to Fantasy Writers (which can be borrowed from archive.org):

"[...] "The Moon Pool" (1918), a definite study of the teasing allure of the exotic. In the novel-length sequel he explains what lay beyond the magic doorway described in the story. Although the plot of the novel is pure pulp cliché the lush setting is crowded with the gaudy imagery which was to become Merritt's hallmark."

"The book version of The Face In the Abyss combines abridged versions of two novellas, [...] "The Face In the Abyss" (1923) and "The Snake Mother" (1930). The book version is highly unsatisfactory, the impact of the earlier story being entirely lost (as, to some extent, the impact of "The Moon Pool" was when it was combined with its sequel). The original serials, however, display some of Merritt's finest work, deploying science-fictional imagery [...] without losing any of the emotional impact o Merritt's passion for the exotic. Here the passion is fully revealed, in quasi-allegorical fashion, as a critique of the awful mundanity of human nature, ruled by the twin principles of Greed and Folly."

"It is easy enough to make fun of Merritt's idiosyncratic prose style, but there was a purpose and a philosophy behind it; like Clark Ashton Smith, Merritt used exotic language in order to convey a sense of the alien, to make every effort possible to distance the reader from mundanity. Merritt is by no means the only fantasy writer to have attempted to make escapism both a vocation and an artform, but he did so with an intensity which few others could match, and it is not surprising that readers who can attune themselves to his strategies still think of him as the best of all such writers."

So is excellence in fantasy to be understood as outstanding performance in a particular variety of escapism? I’d like a little more on that.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So is excellence in fantasy to be understood as
> outstanding performance in a particular variety of
> escapism? I’d like a little more on that.

In Merritt it was an escapism from mundanity, not from life. It was an exhilarated celebration of life.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dale Nelson Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So is excellence in fantasy to be understood as
> > outstanding performance in a particular variety
> of
> > escapism? I’d like a little more on that.
>
> In Merritt it was an escapism from mundanity, not
> from life. It was an exhilarated celebration of
> life.

You're not in any way related to the Merritt family, by blood or marriage, are you, K?

;^)

--Sawfish

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

A. Merritt worked as leading editor for an American newspaper, and on occasion he would dress in kilt and play for the other employees on some of the instruments he kept in a closet at work. Another of his wonderful expressions to alleviate dullness and mundanity.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dale Nelson Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > So is excellence in fantasy to be understood as
> > outstanding performance in a particular variety
> > of escapism? I’d like a little more on that.
>
> In Merritt the escapism was a celebration of
> life beyond mundanity.


From the opening paragraphs of Merritt's The Metal Monster:

In this great crucible of life we call the world--in the
vaster one we call the universe--the mysteries lie close
packed, uncountable as grains of sand on ocean's shores.
They thread gigantic, the star-flung spaces; they creep,
atomic, beneath the microscope's peering eye. They walk
beside us, unseen and unheard, calling out to us, asking
why we are deaf to their crying, blind to their wonder.

Sometimes the veils drop from a man's eyes, and he sees
--and speaks of his vision. Then those who have not seen
pass him by with the lifted brows of disbelief, or they
mock him, or if his vision has been great enough they
fall upon and destroy him.

Knygatin, I don’t expect to love Merritt as you do, but this thread has encouraged me to take up The Moon Poolagain before long.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin, I don’t expect to love Merritt as you
> do, but this thread has encouraged me to take up
> The Moon Pool again before long.

Rather than reading the book version, I would suggest reading the original short-story "The Moon Pool" first (it is a rather finely written weird tale, which was shortly afterwards stripped into simpler pulp when joined with its longer sequel; I have compared them). And then reading the sequel novel The Conquest of the Moon Pool (I don't know if this one was also pared down for the book publication. I have not compared them yet. Perhaps someone else can answer that?). These original versions are both available online.

"Sometimes the veils drop from a man's eyes, and he sees
--and speaks of his vision. Then those who have not seen
pass him by with the lifted brows of disbelief, or they
mock him, or if his vision has been great enough they
fall upon and destroy him."

This reminds me of Kubla Khan (the final verse):

To such a deep delight ’twould win me,
That with music loud and long,
I would build that dome in air,
That sunny dome! those caves of ice!
And all who heard should see them there,
And all should cry, Beware! Beware!
His flashing eyes, his floating hair!
Weave a circle round him thrice,
And close your eyes with holy dread
For he on honey-dew hath fed,
And drunk the milk of Paradise.

I've read all of Merritt except for "Burn, Witch, Burn", and "The Snake Mother". The novelette version of "The Moon Pool" and "The Ship of Ishtar" are the best, "Creep, Shadow", and "Seven Footprints to Satan" are also excellent. Many are drawn to "The Metal Monster" for a cosmicism that is more alleged than authentic. It is a failure stylistically, with repetitive diction and overbaked sentimentality. Yet on the level of sheer fantasy, like all his fiction, it is impressive. Some fantasy novels of the Golden Age are overhyped and likely to disappoint; Jack Williamson's "Darker Than You Think" and "Golden Blood" for example. Merritt was massively popular before Weird Tales came along, and his popularity, if faded now, was deserved.

jkh

Williamson obviously wrote those two novels with a sense of homage to Merritt. Smith referenced succumbing to "the pervasive charm" of Merritt, but that letter was written well into Smith's own career in fiction. I think Merritt, Smith, Lovecraft, Machen, and William Hope Hodgson were the five greatest for imaginative genius, poetical, intense descriptive power, and macabre, fantastical atmosphere in weird fiction. Hodgson and Lovecraft were a bit more flawed or florid. Smith may have barely matched Merritt in the escape from "mundanity", but I think he surpasses him as a great prose stylist.
Merritt had a vast collection of occult literature, and was reputed to be somewhat of a hypochondriac, fairly or not. Enough of my useless maunderings.

jkh

Kipling Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've read all of Merritt except for "Burn, Witch,
> Burn", and "The Snake Mother". The novelette
> version of "The Moon Pool" and "The Ship of
> Ishtar" are the best, "Creep, Shadow", and "Seven
> Footprints to Satan" are also excellent.

I tried The Face In the Abyss (a book merging two novellas), but could not read very far for it didn't make much sense to me (that is because it was so heavily edited). Later on I read both the original magazine versions of "The Face In the Abyss" and "The Snake Mother", and enjoyed them very much. A blend of pulpish and fine writing, wildly spiring imagination, and has a strong perspective against dullness and mundanity.

I must read The Ship of Ishtar! I tried when younger, but could not get into it. Since then I have been lucky to find a paperback edition (Collier) that reproduces the 1949 Memorial edition with Virgil Finlay's illustrations. This version follows the original magazine serial text, and appears to be much longer than other paperback editions.


Thanks for putting Merritt into context alongside the other great writers. Encouraging that someone other than me is willing to give him credit.

I have also read Darker Than You Think, but don't remember much from it. What drew me were Edd Cartier's illustrations.

here's a biography of Merritt by Sam Moskowitz:

[benny-drinnon.blogspot.com]

Not sure what criteria we're using but if it's the dreaminess, it's Dunsany, and if it's the sheer volume, productivity, quantity, it's Howard.

Cartier was indeed a fine illustrator. Gerry de la Ree should have included more of his work in his 1978 volume The Art of the Fantastic, which has only two Cartier works, so I haven't seen those illos you like for Darker Than You Think. I just recall that novel as an example of an author's conception not being matched by his execution of the plot. The Ship of Ishtar is a novel that works on multiple levels to express Merritt's world view.

jkh

Kipling Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cartier was indeed a fine illustrator. Gerry de la
> Ree should have included more of his work in his
> 1978 volume The Art of the Fantastic, which has
> only two Cartier works, so I haven't seen those
> illos you like for Darker Than You Think. I just
> recall that novel as an example of an author's
> conception not being matched by his execution of
> the plot. The Ship of Ishtar is a novel that works
> on multiple levels to express Merritt's world
> view.

I had the paperback Dell edition of Darker Than You Think, with the beautiful Rowena cover, but regrettably, because it was a very nice paperback, when younger and less wise I got rid of it. It had several small black & white illustrations by Cartier interspersed in the text. When I saw them, I decided that this story cannot be anything less than a classic. They are excellent, and were originally published in UNKNOWN, December 1940, which can be downloaded from luminist.org. It has a shorter novella version of the story, which was later expanded.

The Sojourner of Worlds Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not sure what criteria we're using but if it's the
> dreaminess, it's Dunsany, and if it's the sheer
> volume, productivity, quantity, it's Howard.

If so, agreed. However, my criteria was the quality of imaginatively rich, romantic, sparkling fantasy vision.

Where can I find copies of the original magazine versions of "The Face In the Abyss" and "The Snake Mother"?

Geoffrey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Where can I find copies of the original magazine
> versions of "The Face In the Abyss" and "The Snake
> Mother"?

Most likely on ABE-books or Ebay.

Or download them as pdf files:
The Face in the Abyss in Famous Fantastic Mysteries, October 1940
The Snake Mother in Fantastic Novels Magazine, November 1940

Thank you for the links! I look forward to comparing them to my paperback copy of The Face in the Abyss.

Even considering only my Merritt paperbacks, he is definitely one of my favorites.

Do we know what Merritt's involvement was in the altering of his originally-published texts? Did he himself do the alterations? If so, did he consider them improvements, or did he grudgingly make alterations at the behest of the book publishers?

Yesterday I finished "The Metal Monster". Most of it is nothing but a mad orgy of descriptions of colours and shapes and movements, with all the cubes and pyramids and balls arranging and rearranging themselves, and all the cones and discs sucking their energy from our sun, and all the crazy atmospheric phenomena. I enjoyed the book though it has its weak points (like many other books, of course). Personally, I would do without Norhala, Yuruk or Cherkis and his City; they were disturbing elements for me and the story would be much better without them. A bunch of explorers discovering something beyond human knowledge, a metal entity of unknown oirigin, without any fantasy twists with an enigmatic woman and medieval armored warriors with their catapults and bows, that would be an ideal scenario for me. But like I said, I enjoyed it, it has its cosmic moments and it is plainly seen why Lovecraft loved it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 17 Dec 20 | 02:27AM by Minicthulhu.

Knygatin Wrote (lifted from the thread The golden Age of Modern Fantasy):
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have begun reading Merritt's The Ship of Ishtar,
> and immediately hear the tinkle of invisible elfin
> bells. Therefore I think Merritt is ultimately a
> greater fantasist.


I must say, I like the beginning with the model ship. But with the transfer into the fantasy world, this book turns into some awfully stilted purple prose, which I have a hard time digesting. Like that of the ship being divided sharply right at the middle into a black half and a light half, representing the struggle aboard between evil and good. A very silly and unconvincing metaphor device. I hope things get better. I normally like Merritt's purple prose in The Moon Pool, The Metal Monster, and The Face in the Abyss / The Snake Mother novella magazine versions.

The Ship of Ishtar has actually been published in different versions. I am lucky to have a reprint (Collier) of the hardcover Memorial Edition that uses the original longer magazine text. (It is my experience that Merritt's original texts are better and more fulfilling than the cut versions.)

Geoffrey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do we know what Merritt's involvement was in the
> altering of his originally-published texts? Did he
> himself do the alterations? If so, did he consider
> them improvements, ....

I picked up the following conversation from sffchronicles.

JDWorth: "[The Metal Monster] is without a doubt Merritt's most difficult book. Magnificent stuff in there, but often bogged down by too much information. Oddly, the compressed version (which is the one usually seen) is even worse with this than the full magazine version, which is considerably longer. That one actually has more, but the flow of the prose is much better (though still extremely dense), has a higher level of poetry and simply staggering concepts and tableaux. Even so, reading it can lead to sensory burnout if you're not careful....
-- Merritt was never satisfied with that one, either; over the years he kept tinkering with it, trying to get it exactly the way he wanted it, but never succeeded...."

Dask: "I didn't know the magazine version was longer than the book. I would have preferred to have read that if I had the option. Compressed, edited, censored, they all ring similar bells and emit similar smells."

JDWorth: "Well, in this case, it was Merritt's own decision to attempt compressing the novel; he felt it meandered far too much, and was attempting to remove that aspect (among some other faults he perceived). Unfortunately, what he ended up doing was removing much of the music of the prose, often turning what was a fine turn of phrase into choppy, telegraphic barrages of statements.

Incidentally, you can find the original version here:
The Metal Monster By A. Merritt - Hippocampus Press

I'd definitely suggest going for the Hippocampus Press edition of The Metal Monster, as it is -- despite being a bit of a slog now and again -- far superior to the standard edition...."

Dask: "But if all you have is the standard edition --- mine is the 1972 Avon paperback --- it's still worth it. :)"

Lobolover: "No. It's humongously condensed and edited."

Clovis-man: "I`m reading the Kindle version of The Metal Monster. I assume it`s the revision. A little hard to wade through some of the descriptive narrative. I'll slog on through, I guess. But so far it`s my least favorite of his works."

JDWorth: "Yes, there are lengthy descriptive passages which can act as a roadblock at times; the best thing to do with these is simply to change gears and let the imagery flow; doing this can actually make a fair amount of this rather impressive on a different level...."



Well, for me The Metal Monster (full magazine version) is simply one of the most impressive supernatural books I ever read, along with Hodgson's The Night Land. It is beyond criticism, because criticism will only come up with complaints about the mundane superficially literary aspects, never have authority to touch upon the supernatural components (unless you are a genius as great as Merritt himself). That is why I read supernatural fiction - to be ASTOUNDED. I never pretend, or fool myself, that I can outwit and analyze the great SF & F Masters. I can only be AMAZED, STUNNED, and respectfully admire. They are the great magicians and kings. And I humbly bow down.

Quote:

K:
That is why I read supernatural fiction - to be ASTOUNDED. I never pretend, or fool myself, that I can outwit and analyze the great SF & F Masters. I can only be AMAZED, STUNNED, and respectfully admire. They are the great magicians and kings. And I humbly bow down.

That's a very perceptive rationale for reading supernatural fiction; I hadn't actually considered my reasons in this light, but in my case it's certainly the desired goal--to be amazed, astounded.

This seldom happens, however, at east not anymore...

I'll add that I finished Lindsay's "The Haunted Woman" and was very, very impressed with the pacing, character development of the principal character, Isbel (a woman I'd make it a point to stay well away from), and of the supporting cast.

The story, itself, seemed to delve into the ideas of socially repressed sexual desire, "liberated" in the ultra-dimensional rooms/passages of Runhill. In this sense, many passages were electric...

Good recommendation, K!

--Sawfish

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

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'll add that I finished Lindsay's "The Haunted
> Woman" and was very, very impressed with the
> pacing, character development of the principal
> character, Isbel (a woman I'd make it a point to
> stay well away from), and of the supporting cast.
>
> The story, itself, seemed to delve into the ideas
> of socially repressed sexual desire, "liberated"
> in the ultra-dimensional rooms/passages of
> Runhill. In this sense, many passages were
> electric...
>
> Good recommendation, K!


Wow, that is gratifying. I am very happy it was worthwhile for you. It is a sad state of affair when we read books we don't enjoy. Did you find the fiddle player seen from the window creepy? I think there was some very good reason we were not allowed to see his face, but only his back. His long hair gave me the jitters. Not quite fully human.

WOW, The Ship of Ishtar has much improved!

Nearly as good as the classic ecstatic remark from The Metal Monster,

"In this great crucible of life we call the world--in the
vaster one we call the universe--the mysteries lie close
packed, uncountable as grains of sand on ocean's shores.
They thread gigantic, the star-flung spaces; they creep,
atomic, beneath the microscope's peering eye. They walk
beside us, unseen and unheard, calling out to us, asking
why we are deaf to their crying, blind to their wonder."

Well actually, it is just as good!

I was afraid I had become jaded over the last few years, but I can't possibly be indifferent to this text. This book is like old times, when I felt much more romantic. And it really rewards slow and reflective reading. And I also discovered here that I find Merritt at his best when he uses physics, atoms, and such applications, to make a convincing fantastic philosophical argument for parallel dimensions and worlds coexisting. I had feared the basic concept of this book would be too naive and clumsy, and never could convince my demands and cravings. But no worries now.

Also, I have been forewarned of "embarrassing, silly and antiquated" romantic elements, so I will not let such bother me. But so far I find it very appealing; women are feminine, and men are masculine, as it should be. But many today will not tolerate that (especially those writing book reviews at goodreads and similar places), since they have been brainwashed that women should act as men, and men should act as women. Well, it's their loss.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > I'll add that I finished Lindsay's "The Haunted
> > Woman" and was very, very impressed with the
> > pacing, character development of the principal
> > character, Isbel (a woman I'd make it a point
> to
> > stay well away from), and of the supporting
> cast.
> >
> > The story, itself, seemed to delve into the
> ideas
> > of socially repressed sexual desire,
> "liberated"
> > in the ultra-dimensional rooms/passages of
> > Runhill. In this sense, many passages were
> > electric...
> >
> > Good recommendation, K!
>
>
> Wow, that is gratifying. I am very happy it was
> worthwhile for you. It is a sad state of affair
> when we read books we don't enjoy. Did you find
> the fiddle player seen from the window creepy? I
> think there was some very good reason we were not
> allowed to see his face, but only his back. His
> long hair gave me the jitters. Not quite fully
> human.

Yes, it was creepy. A tall, broadly built *something* that had yellow hair and an inexplicable costume...and the instrument he played was similarly ambiguous.

I expected that we *would* see his face, and it seems like Judge saw it, and died, and earlier there was another person who saw it (Mrs. B.?) and died also.

Very, very effective book.

--Sawfish

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

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WOW, The Ship of Ishtar has much improved!
>
> Nearly as good as the classic ecstatic remark from
> The Metal Monster,
>
> "In this great crucible of life we call the
> world--in the
> vaster one we call the universe--the mysteries
> lie close
> packed, uncountable as grains of sand on ocean's
> shores.
> They thread gigantic, the star-flung spaces; they
> creep,
> atomic, beneath the microscope's peering eye.
> They walk
> beside us, unseen and unheard, calling out to us,
> asking
> why we are deaf to their crying, blind to their
> wonder."
>
> Well actually, it is just as good!
>
> I was afraid I had become jaded over the last few
> years, but I can't possibly be indifferent to this
> text. This book is like old times, when I felt
> much more romantic. And it really rewards slow and
> reflective reading. And I also discovered here
> that I find Merritt at his best when he uses
> physics, atoms, and such applications, to make a
> convincing fantastic philosophical argument for
> parallel dimensions and worlds coexisting. I had
> feared the basic concept of this book would be too
> naive and clumsy, and never could convince my
> demands and cravings. But no worries now.
>
> Also, I have been forewarned of "embarrassing,
> silly and antiquated" romantic elements, so I will
> not let such bother me. But so far I find it very
> appealing; women are feminine, and men are
> masculine, as it should be.


Did I really say that?!! God, this is one boring book! About halfway through there has still not been a change of setting! They are still figuring on how to escape from the shackles of the ship. Along with an equally outdrawn, and boring, unrequited romantic/erotic, reciprocally teasing and held back, relationship. And this is supposed to be one of the greatest and most classic fantasies ever?!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 16 Apr 21 | 09:16AM by Knygatin.

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! Fantastic representation of a man's struggle, being stranded in the World, to force himself mentally and bodily back into the parallel Universe of his fantasy world. I imagine this perspective is a self-portrait of Merritt's own struggles.

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! Fantastic
> representation of a man's struggle, being stranded
> in the World, to force himself mentally and bodily
> back into the parallel Universe of his fantasy
> world. I imagine this perspective is a
> self-portrait of Merritt's own struggles.

Yes, it is probably Merritt's masterpiece because of the metaphysical symbolism, and the closing chapters completely redeem the slower middle sections, unifying the personal vision of the entire novel. Much better than The Metal Monster IMO. What do you think of Burn Witch Burn and Creep, Shadow, his 2 horror novels? I found the former to be a letdown after a promising start, but Creep, Shadow I thoroughly enjoyed. As regards differing versions, I am reminded that Arthur Machen condensed his original version of The Terror, greatly improving the overall structure and effect, according to some readers. Perhaps The Metal Monster was pruned a bit by our other A.M.?

jkh

Kipling Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What do you think of Burn Witch Burn and
> Creep, Shadow, his 2 horror novels? I found the
> former to be a letdown after a promising start,
> but Creep, Shadow I thoroughly enjoyed. As regards
> differing versions, I am reminded that Arthur
> Machen condensed his original version of The
> Terror, greatly improving the overall structure
> and effect, according to some readers. Perhaps The
> Metal Monster was pruned a bit by our other A.M.?

Sorry, I have not read them yet. And they are not very high on my reading list, although Creep sounds promising.

I read the version of Machen's The Terror that is in the original edition of Tales of Horror and the Supernatural, which is the full text. I did not find it outdrawn, but quite well written. Suspenseful. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Yes, The Metal Monster was pruned, but not for the better. Choppy. Everyone regards the full version superior, holds together better, more full-bodied. I loved it.

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!