I read The Swords of Lankhmar, the fifth book in the series published by Ace, and probably the best. It is written in a complete ecstasy of inspiration, from first page to the last. Every single sentence is imaginative. Rarely have I laughed so much while reading a book. Leiber in top form! Leiber possessed very good psychological observation skills of character and behavior. And it gets supremely funny now and then.

A very detailed book it is, with minute technical observations of settings, and especially of every single moment of action, told in consecutive sequence one scene after another (orderly alternating between different locations of parallel actions). Which can become tiresome. Not much of relieving larger sweeping perspectives, or prose that is independent of a time scale. I think I would enjoyed this book even more when I was younger, more patient with the worldly, and less spiritually demanding.

This book gives the full, last and final word about rats! It retells every perspective that can be said about rats, and their attributes, in the human history archives and folk traditions. From a fantasy view. Very satisfying indeed!

Inevitably I must compare Fritz Leiber to Clark Ashton Smith and Jack Vance. And I don't think he is quite as weirdly original in his imagination, not quite as creatively unique, as those two. He works more in the field of traditional classic fantasy, and he does it beautifully; he is a Master of symbols and metaphor. He translates our physical reality into fantasy very effectively. He really shines at it. Doing it perhaps better than any other writer I have read.

There is also a tip of the hat to Tolkien in The Swords of Lankhmar, in a short scene beautifully retelling the escape from the black riders at the Ford.

When I've reread Leiber stories I first read in the 1970s (at which time I was quite a fan), I haven't generally cared for them, but when I taught a unit on science fiction in Introduction to Literature in college, among the ten or so stories was Leiber's "A Pail of Air." That remains one of my all-time favorite sf stories. It was in distinguished company in that unit -- stories such as Budrys's "Rogue Moon," Moore and Kuttner's "Vintage Season," Bradbury's "All Summer in a Day," Shaw's "Light of Other Days," Ellison's "One Life, Furnished in Early Poverty," and Connie Willis's "D. A."

Fritz Leiber may actually have applied the rats here as a metaphor for the global banking/freemason elite that I have mentioned elsewhere, when he describes the rats as ambitiously wanting to rule with full power over Lankhmar, the World, then ... the conquest of the Universe! The subjugation of the angels and demons, of heaven itself and hell! This megalomaniac elite has been compared to rats before, after all.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... Leiber's "A Pail of Air." That remains one of my all-time favorite sf stories.
>

It is certainly memorable!

It's a while since I read it, but as I recall his "Smoke Ghost" was a nifty variation on M. R. James.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's a while since I read it, but as I recall his
> "Smoke Ghost" was a nifty variation on M. R.
> James.

I read it, but it didn't make a lasting impression on me.

The Swords of Lankhmar can be compared to R. E. Howard's The Hour of the Dragon, in that both are novels, written in short-story style. With one episodic scene after another replacing each other, all held together by an outer background story-frame. But I think The Swords of Lankhmar is the better one. It really is a very ambitious work. And cinematic in appearance. Towards the end especially I had the impression Leiber had been directly inspired by some of C. A. Smith's Zothique imagery. Leiber can disclose very nasty situations, but he is never as dark as Smith and Lovecraft; his humor always takes over.

Fritz was a swordsman/fencer in real life, and his literary fighting scenes are very well choreographed! More elegant than Howard, while the latter is more brutal, they are, all in all, each other's equals on that account.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... Towards the end especially I had the impression Leiber had been
> directly inspired by some of C. A. Smith's Zothique imagery. ...
>

And Smith's Poseidonis even more perhaps. Anyway, there is much bizarre imagery in the book. And much insight about human character, ... I learned a few lessons from it, about calculating deceitful behaviors and their revealing expressions, to be wary of.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 16 Sep 21 | 03:00AM by Knygatin.

Dale, I read your thread over at sffchronicles.com, about other fantasists not being satisfying like Tolkien. If I understand you correctly, harkening further back, you do prefer fantasists that have a Christian foundation of values as base. Writers that the church congregation you belong to would tolerate; writers such as Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, George MacDonald, and William Morris. Who are all pious.

From that perspective I can fully understand that you don't like Leiber's fantasies, because the actions in his books definitely do not adhere to Christian values and morals. More sybarite.

But writers like Smith, Vance, and Leiber, has something else, things that your favorite "Christian" fantasy authors lack. And that is a developed sense of details, an imagination of rich colors and forms, and weird dimensions. Because they are more attached to and interested in the manifested and worldly.

Tolkien for example, was an inferior fantasist compared to Smith, Vance, and Leiber, and others. Tolkien was not really a fantasist. One can say that he was more of a historian, linguist, maker of imaginary human history, imaginary legend, and myth maker. And his perspectives were more sweeping, more about inner processes, than those of a true fantasist. Many people find his The Lord of the Rings dull, and that is because it is more about a mission, inner values, morals, maturing, ... than being genuine fantasy. And I can see why you prefer that perspective, and see it as more "important", from your Christian perspective; for isn't the only purpose with life, and the use of our time, to find our way back to God and Heaven? So a fantasy book, like Leiber's, that doesn't clearly display that spiritually uplifted purpose, then becomes meaningless.

Personally I don't feel a need to choose sides, because I appreciate both. I like colors and form, and I appreciate witnessing the bizarre and the weird. But I also appreciate what Tolkien does, which is something else.

Kyngatin, it's seemed appropriate, particularly in some philosophical-type discussions here at ED over the past couple of months, for me to be forthright about my being a Christian.

I think, though, that understanding, enjoyment, and evaluation of artistic works (literature, fine arts, etc.) can to a considerable degree be independent of agreement with someone's religious beliefs or lack thereof. I think you agree.

In case ED folk are interested, here's the situation to which Knygatin refers:

The Chronicles Forums thread that I started on Sept. 15 was a variation on one started this week by a Chronster called Rumi_fan. Rumi_fan's thread asked, "Do all fantasy books fans like The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit?" I thought the variation was worth asking too: "Do 'all' people who like Hobbit and Lord of the Rings like the fantasy genre?"

The answers to Rumi_fan's question and to mine were both "No." There are people who read a lot of fantasy who don't like Tolkien's books, and there are people who like the Tolkien books but aren't interested in most fantasy. I belong to the latter category, although I listed a number of fantasy books not by Tolkien that I like, including Lewis's Narnian books, Alexander's Prydain quintet (The Book of Three, The Black Cauldron, etc.), Garner's Weirdstone of Brisingamen, Le Guin's first three Earthsea books, and William Morris's Water of the Wondrous Isles etc. I said further that some fantasy I used to like doesn't seem to appeal to me now, mentioning Lord Dunsany (meaning his familiar "dreams") and Leiber's Fafhrd and Mouser stories.

I used to like Dunsany's dream-world fantasies and Leiber's sword-and-sorcery stories quite a lot, but these mostly seem to have lost their charm when I have revisited them. I've already commented here at The Eldritch Dark about Dunsany -- reserving for the future a possible return to books such as The Charwoman's Shadow. I don't remember saying anything here or at Chrons about the Fafhrd and Mouser stories other than that I used to like them, don't care for them now. I revisited two or three of them, I think, within the past ten years. This was in library books. The only title I'm pretty sure of was "The Bleak Shore," in an anthology of stories taken from Unknown, the short-lived magazine. I admit that my thoughts on the F & M stories, then, aren't worth much -- I was reading and rereading them mostly in the 1970s, when I read an enormous amount of fantasy.

What can I say in general?

The type of fantasy in which it seems the author has an ironic attitude towards his stories doesn't appeal to me. I think that's true of Dunsany's typical fantasy (take the one about Thangobrand the thief as an example). That would include James Branch Cabell's writing, I assume, though even when I was reading fantasy all the time I never took to Cabell. I don't suppose I have read The Swords of Lankhmar since the 1970s, but I know I read it once or twice. I seem to remember that Leiber writes there in a Dunsanian manner about the world of Nehwon (no-when) as a sort of soap bubble or something like that. But whether or not my memory there is right, I think it's probably true that, when I read Leiber's sword-and-sorcery, I feel that the author is trying to be clever. He is trying to seem sophisticated.

It's as if he's defending himself from anyone taking him to be a Robert E. Howard type of author. I know that Leiber liked Howard's Conan stories (as I can too, although they get terribly repetitive and really do often seem slapdash), but Conan and his world are not depicted from a pervasively ironic point of view. But (as I recall) everything in the F & M stories is depicted from an ironic point of view. To me, this is reminiscent of the attitude often seen in bright adolescents who aren't very happy with life. They wrap an easy, unearned protective irony around themselves, and they can be very good at being "clever."

Don't misunderstand me. Irony can be used to great effect in fiction. Two of my favorite novels are Joseph Conrad's The Secret Agent and Evelyn Waugh's A Handful of Dust. These are magnificent works that show how irony can be used in a truly mature and justified way. (Neither of them, by the way, is by a Christian. I don't think Conrad ever was one, and Waugh was not yet a Roman Catholic when he wrote this book.) I have sometimes felt that The Secret Agent is a book I wish I had written. I admire it very, very much. I won't launch a discussion of it here. But trust me: it is a master class in the right use of irony. So is Sophocles' Oedipus Rex, by the way.

De Camp was another author who had the ironic, "clever" habit, as I recall. I used to like his writing. I even wrote him fan letters (to which he replied -- what a real gentleman). But when I took up The Tritonian Ring a while ago, as I recall it didn't hold my interest and I didn't finish rereading it.

OK -- that's one point about why I might not like a fair bit of fantasy. (By the way, I did reread The Dying Earth and The Eyes of the Overworld within the past 10 years or so. As I recall it took a certain amount of determination to reread DE, but I enjoyed Eyes a fair bit once again, on this third reading.)

Here I want to pause, before I forget, to mention that William Morris was not a Christian author. (Nor were Garner and Le Guin, and I don't know one way or the other about Lloyd Alexander.)

I used to specialize in reading fantasy. Now I usually stick to some favorites, among which are several of the books I love the most.

Tolkien and Lewis shared not only the same faith, but a receptiveness to the natural world that is vitally important also to me. Their stories have real mountains, real weather, real sunlight on leaves, real mist rising at morning from riverbanks. This sense of the real "outdoors" world is (as I recall) something Leiber never evokes. I'm not saying he ought to try to drum it up if he doesn't experience it and it's not needed for the story he wants to write. But that quality is one of the things that brings me back to these favorites of mine again and again.

It's there in some of the best of Algernon Blackwood. Read the opening pages of one of the John Silence stories, "The Camp of the Dog," set in Swedish islands -- do you know it, Knygatin?

So these authors whom I love refresh that sense of wonder that we should feel about the real world.

If this long posting by me interests anyone, I wish he or she would read my "Sort of Like Tolkien" article here:

[efanzines.com]

It goes into even more detail, for example, about why I, a Tolkien fan, might enjoy a travel book a lot more than a fantasy book even though The Lord of the Rings is a fantasy.



Edited 10 time(s). Last edit at 16 Sep 21 | 07:46PM by Dale Nelson.

Conan's world is unrelievedly bleak, and because of this they seem to me repetitive.

It just occurred to me that the underlying feeling, the universal sensibility, of The Worm Ourboros, is similar to that of the Rings trilogy. Diction, pace, linguistic emphasis and selection, are entirely different--possibly approaching the Silmarillion--what little I can remember of it. But the universe and its moral underpinnings are very, very similar.

--Sawfish

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

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> It just occurred to me that the underlying
> feeling, the universal sensibility, of The Worm
> Ourboros, is similar to that of the Rings trilogy.
> Diction, pace, linguistic emphasis and selection,
> are entirely different--possibly approaching the
> Silmarillion--what little I can remember of it.
> But the universe and its moral underpinnings are
> very, very similar.


I'm chuckling as I type -- oy vey, buddy, your comment gobsmacks me! Admittedly it's many years since I managed to read the Worm through.* But a similarity of moral underpinnings between Worm and Silmarillion?

OK, both admire heroism, courage, splendor. If that's what you mean, I get it.

But I don't remember much of a moral focus in Eddison's novel. In that famous conclusion, the conflict starts all over again because that's what these warriors -- whether Demons or Witches -- love.

Conversely, in Silm. the moral element is very important. It's largely about the disasters that follow Fëanor's possessiveness, his soul captivated by the beauty of the things he has made, his terrible vow, the Kinslaying that follows, etc. (I might be misremembering a bit -- I'm a Tolkien fan but it is a while since I last read the First Age material in the book.) Tolkien's story is largely the outworking of doom thanks to wrong motives and wrong actions. Surely there is nothing like that in Eddison -- ?

Let's not forget, though, that Knygatin's thread is on Leiber. Maybe we can get away with a little on Tolkien and Eddison since Leiber read them both with appreciation. (He favorably reviewed Lin Carter's book on Tolkien, and I remember him quoting a passage describing woman's beauty from Eddison in a review of another book. He used to write reviews for Ted White's Fantastic magazine.)


*I have wanted to reread it! I've wanted to like it, as I did many years ago. And the style should be easier to read now what with all the Elizabethan and Jacobean writing I've taught since reading Eddison for the first time. But on two or three tries, the Worm didn't hold my interest, and I'm to the point that I don't generally stick with a book when that happens. I do expect to try again!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 16 Sep 21 | 09:56PM by Dale Nelson.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > It just occurred to me that the underlying
> > feeling, the universal sensibility, of The Worm
> > Ourboros, is similar to that of the Rings
> trilogy.
> > Diction, pace, linguistic emphasis and
> selection,
> > are entirely different--possibly approaching
> the
> > Silmarillion--what little I can remember of it.
> > But the universe and its moral underpinnings
> are
> > very, very similar.
>
>
> I'm chuckling as I type -- oy vey, buddy, your
> comment gobsmacks me! Admittedly it's many years
> since I managed to read the Worm through.* But a
> similarity of moral underpinnings between Worm and
> Silmarillion?
>
> OK, both admire heroism, courage, splendor. If
> that's what you mean, I get it.

Yes.

And very clear good vs evil. There is no equivocation or attempt to explain or mitigate the causes of good/evil: they just *are*.

>
> But I don't remember much of a moral focus in
> Eddison's novel. In that famous conclusion, the
> conflict starts all over again because that's what
> these warriors -- whether Demons or Witches --
> love.

Yes, you are right about this, and in this sense they seem more like Nordic mythology--there is NO Christian element, and no elements of morality that a Christina reader might recognize.

>
> Conversely, in Silm. the moral element is very
> important. It's largely about the disasters that
> follow Fëanor's possessiveness, his soul
> captivated by the beauty of the things he has
> made, his terrible vow, the Kinslaying that
> follows, etc. (I might be misremembering a bit --
> I'm a Tolkien fan but it is a while since I last
> read the First Age material in the book.)
> Tolkien's story is largely the outworking of doom
> thanks to wrong motives and wrong actions. Surely
> there is nothing like that in Eddison -- ?

Not that I can see.

I have to admit: I'm not familiar enough with the Silmarillion to make such a blanket comparison.

Maybe I was simply fishing for a response...? :^)

>
> Let's not forget, though, that Knygatin's thread
> is on Leiber. Maybe we can get away with a little
> on Tolkien and Eddison since Leiber read them both
> with appreciation. (He favorably reviewed Lin
> Carter's book on Tolkien, and I remember him
> quoting a passage describing woman's beauty from
> Eddison in a review of another book. He used to
> write reviews for Ted White's Fantastic
> magazine.)

I enjoyed Lieber when young and more easily impressed with a sort of pseudo-worldiness.

You find this in Theft of the 39 Girdles, too. Not my favorite or anywhere near it.

See? I reeled it back in...

:^)

>
>
> *I have wanted to reread it! I've wanted to like
> it, as I did many years ago. And the style should
> be easier to read now what with all the
> Elizabethan and Jacobean writing I've taught since
> reading Eddison for the first time. But on two
> or three tries, the Worm didn't hold my interest,
> and I'm to the point that I don't generally stick
> with a book when that happens. I do expect to try
> again!!

I did not like the Worm until about 10 years ago. For whatever reason, it clicked. Between the simplicity of it, and the language, and especially the names, it was a good place to hang out for a short while.

I have not found the other Eddison stuff to be to my liking.

--Sawfish

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

Thank you for your comments. I will not continue with a long discussion here about literature, Christian outlook, and unbound fantasy versus more world-anchored fantasy, in general. But I may continue comparing Leiber to other authors, if new thoughts come up. (Shortly on Dale's question about Blackwood, no, I have not read "The Camp of the Dog", ... only a few of the John Silence stories, of which I liked "Ancient Sorceries" especially.)

As I think Leiber worked with more traditional, classic fantasy elements, using his imagination to create symbols and metaphor referring to the real world, I find him less of a genuine fantasist compared to Smith and Vance who both went further into exploring weird phenomena and stretching their imaginations to the outer.

I don't agree that Leiber tried to prove himself, or defended himself against being compared to Howard. He had a genuine sense of humor. And he enjoyed entertaining himself and his fellow man. Sure, his humor could be very clever, but that was how his intelligent mind functioned, and he a lot of fun with it. And he was definitely anchored in the real world, with very good observational skills; using metaphor as I have mentioned, but also painting beautiful medieval settings, with all its paraphernalia.

I may be unfair to Leiber. He did go off on tangents, exploring weird and metaphysical possibilities.

But overall a traditionalist.

That all being said, I am not likely to read further Fafhrd & Gray Mouser books, in a very long time, hence. The first five books completes my introduction learning and cultivation from this series. Similar to Dale, I feel something is lacking for me personally, although I don't feel active dislike. For the sake of argument, I have been obliged to oppose Dale's diametrically negative opinions regarding Leiber. Leiber is a very good fantasist, a sharp psychologist, and a masterful prose artist. I must defend his talents, for he is one of the greats. But, ... what I miss in these books, ... is more of a spiritual detachment from the material. The continual chase after treasure, money, alcohol, and wenches, gets miserly and dissatisfying. Leiber was himself an alcoholic, struggling with the sordidness of that morass, and I never sense in these books that he soars above the physical and worldly identification.

Knygatin, since you've read so many of these Fafhrd - Mouser stories recently, I gather, would you like to name some of the stories that you think are the best, along with The Swords of Lankhmar?

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin, since you've read so many of these
> Fafhrd - Mouser stories recently, I gather, would
> you like to name some of the stories that you
> think are the best, along with The Swords of
> Lankhmar?


My absolute favorite story is "The Jewels in the Forest". One of his earliest. It is very exciting, and has some fine fantastic/magical situations. It opens with an ancient description of the year, month, and day (sort of like Clark Ashton Smith), and then succinctly captures an atmospheric bucolic scene, like a painting by Bruegel.

Before that, the "The Circle Curse" begins the book, introducing the sorcerer Sheelba of the Eyeless Face who lives in a walking hut. Any story featuring Sheelba and the walking hut is worthwhile. It returns with full force in The Swords of Lankhmar.

"The Sunken Land" is memorable.

"When the Sea-King's Away" is a great little underwater adventure. Imaginative.

Anyone interested in mountain-climbing should find "Stardock" interesting.

"The Lords of Quarmall" is a very dark underground drama. Not a particular favorite though, too much jumbly back and forth actions.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 18 Sep 21 | 02:21AM by Knygatin.

"The Unholy Grail" has some fine medieval scenes, and Gray Mouser's beginning practices of magic. Fritz Leiber was really cast in a different time.

"But, ... what I miss in these books, ... is more of a spiritual detachment from the material. The continual chase after treasure, money, alcohol, and wenches, gets miserly and dissatisfying. Leiber was himself an alcoholic, struggling with the sordidness of that morass, and I never sense in these books that he soars above the physical and worldly identification."

Leiber was a materialist of sorts, so I'm puzzled why you would find this surprising. If you'll notice, though, The Twain are repeatedly stripped of their (mostly) ill-gotten gains from chasing after wealth and sensation, briefly humbled by the ephemeral nature of worldly possessions, status, and experiences. While I agree that Leiber never "soars" *above* the physical and worldly, I think that's precisely the point. It's an intentional artistic approach. As stand-ins for himself (and ostensibly HOF), Fafhrd and the Mouser are forced to wallow in material realities and are continually faced with their own mortality and unimportance in an indifferent universe they can never truly understand.

As Leiber puts it in the introduction to his own self-selected collection "The Best of Fritz Leiber", "The Supreme Goddess of the Universe is Mystery". As someone who described his two main influences as Shakespeare and H. P. Lovecraft, I think this aesthetic exhibits exactly what one would expect (and want, in my case) from someone who continues and celebrates the stylistic tradition of the former while refining, nay sublimating, the more sophisticated modern worldview (in the narrow sense) of the latter.

While CAS was certainly an influence on Leiber, I would argue that it's more in choice of milieu as backdrop for these tales. His modulation of language is much more precise, if less poetic and more dramatic, than CAS's, and his lexical range is of an entirely different sort, favoring the Elizabethan rather than italianate flourishes and homonymic proliferation of Smith.

I myself think Leiber is one of the best fantasy writers exactly *because* he engages with the worldly and material through "low fantasy", while championing (through his champions) the human spirit of adventure that makes both high fantasy and S&S so alluring. He avoids the essentially trivial nature of a Dunsany, as well as the unconscious self-parody of REH's Conan or Moorcock's Elric.

All that said, most of his "science fiction" I can barely read. IMO with some evidence, he wrote most of this stuff because it was what was selling (hello Misters Heinlein, Asimov, et al.), and it just wasn't his forte.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 18 Sep 21 | 09:15AM by Radovarl.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dale Nelson Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Knygatin, since you've read so many of these
> > Fafhrd - Mouser stories recently, I gather,
> would
> > you like to name some of the stories that you
> > think are the best, along with The Swords of
> > Lankhmar?
>
>
> My absolute favorite story is "The Jewels in the
> Forest". One of his earliest. It is very exciting,
> and has some fine fantastic/magical situations. It
> opens with an ancient description of the year,
> month, and day (sort of like Clark Ashton Smith),
> and then succinctly captures an atmospheric
> bucolic scene, like a painting by Bruegel.
>
> Before that, the "The Circle Curse" begins the
> book, introducing the sorcerer Sheelba of the
> Eyeless Face who lives in a walking hut. Any story
> featuring Sheelba and the walking hut is
> worthwhile. It returns with full force in The
> Swords of Lankhmar.
>
> "The Sunken Land" is memorable.
>
> "When the Sea-King's Away" is a great little
> underwater adventure. Imaginative.
>
> Anyone interested in mountain-climbing should find
> "Stardock" interesting.
>
> "The Lords of Quarmall" is a very dark underground
> drama. Not a particular favorite though, too much
> jumbly back and forth actions.

Thanks for taking time to list these, along with "The Unholy Grail." My wife returned from a multi-city trip by air, the day before yesterday, and we are going into semi-quarantine, although we're vaccinated. So I don't intend to submit any interlibrary loan requests for a little while. But I'd like to revisit several of these stories eventually. But isn't the Sea-king one the story with the line I always disliked? There's a description of some cute (probably underage) girl, with the sentence, "Naturally, she was naked." That "naturally" gives the whole game away, doesn't it? Leiber is flaunting the made-upness of his story with a bogus sophistication. Mr. Clever-Clever. However, stories he wrote earlier avoided that kind of literary coquetry, right?

At any rate it must be decades since I have seen the story with that line, but, as you can see, it has stuck in my mind for a long time. I think I read it when it was first published in Fantastic or Whispers.

What about "Bazaar of the Bizarre"? I don't remember much about that other than that the goods on display were not what they seemed to be (right?). It seems to me I used to have the issue of Fantastic in which it was first published. That was during the period of Cele Goldsmith's editorship, I think. I never had more than a few of those issues, all second-hand. My favorite thing from the ones I did have is an issue with a four-page letter about Mervyn Peake written by Michael Moorcock. I used to be quite a Peake fan, and hope that sometime I'll return to Gormenghast and complete an overdue second reading. I've read Titus Groan twice. The first time was in a college course taught by my favorite professor of the time. The second time was in a college course I tauight myself.

Thank you Radovarl, I agree with your valid points. I wouldn't say I am "surprised" at Leiber's materialist perspective, just not completely satisfied with it; I prefer CAS in that sense, because, he seems better at detaching himself from the worldly perspective, poverty, and failures. He "soars" in another way, in his stories, I mean.

I think this must be very much a matter of personal taste, preference, and individual existential needs. I well understand that many readers prefer Leiber over others. Perhaps he can be categorized as a realist in the fantasy genre? Or "low fantasy" as you term it. I definitely appreciate his mastery of and understanding in describing the physical world, and the behaviors and motivations of characters struggling their ways through hardships, and dealing also with their failures and re-motivation of themselves.
After all, even if a person finds relief in discovering the spiritual, he still has to deal with the world to some measure, like everybody else.

I have only read a little of his science fiction so far. I liked "The Enchanted Forest". The first scene is similar to Jack Vance's Star King, in which a talented wastrel (or elvish superhuman) alone and exalted steps out of his spaceship onto a new world. Great stuff. "The Haunted Future" (I think that is the title) was pretty interesting. I believe he soars higher from the materialistic in his science fiction stories!

Dale, I don't recall that line, "Naturally, she was naked.", you mention.

I know that "Bazaar of the Bizarre" is highly regarded, and I remember it as being rather well written and rich, but the story and its details have not stuck in my memory.

The story with the "Naturally, she was naked" line might be "The Bait." It probably was in Swords and Ice Magic, about which a Goodreads member commented:

-----A lacklustre collection of late-career Leiber which would have better remained unpublished.

I really wanted to enjoy this one; I have fond memories of reading the Gray Mouser stories as a teen. Sadly, to this middle aged man, this late-career collection of Leiber's stories came across as a publisher-led exercise in barrel-scraping. For sure there were some glorious turns of phrase, but the first four stories all seemed to be little more than fragmentary re-writes of Leiber trying to nail down an idea about symmetry or dualism which he never quite pulled off. The final two were ok, I guess, but with issues. While the heroes of these tales have always been sociopathic sex-pests to an extent, in this one they seemed to cross a line from bawdy to creepy. There's just a little bit too much "barely more than a girl" and "budding breasts" going on here. A shame.----

It wouldn't be fair to judge the whole cycle of Fafhrd-Mouser stories by the worst ones, of course!

Knygatin, yes I of course agree that these are purely matters of taste. While I enjoy Smith's style immensely, and really like the exalted language of his "extended prose poem" short stories, I find it more difficult to become invested in his characters. I cannot bring myself to identify as much with his characters, however memorable, as I can with the flawed, oh too human characters of the Fafhrd and Gray Mouse saga (the Twain, also secondary characters). They feel "real" in a way CAS's don't. But clearly that is not what every reader is seeking, and not every reader is into that vibe all of the time, and obviously that's cool.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The story with the "Naturally, she was naked" line
> might be "The Bait." It probably was in Swords
> and Ice Magic, about which a Goodreads member
> commented:
>
> -----A lacklustre collection of late-career Leiber
> which would have better remained unpublished.
>
> I really wanted to enjoy this one; I have fond
> memories of reading the Gray Mouser stories as a
> teen. Sadly, to this middle aged man, this
> late-career collection of Leiber's stories came
> across as a publisher-led exercise in
> barrel-scraping. For sure there were some glorious
> turns of phrase, but the first four stories all
> seemed to be little more than fragmentary
> re-writes of Leiber trying to nail down an idea
> about symmetry or dualism which he never quite
> pulled off. The final two were ok, I guess, but
> with issues. While the heroes of these tales have
> always been sociopathic sex-pests to an extent, in
> this one they seemed to cross a line from bawdy to
> creepy. There's just a little bit too much "barely
> more than a girl" and "budding breasts" going on
> here. A shame.----
>
> It wouldn't be fair to judge the whole cycle of
> Fafhrd-Mouser stories by the worst ones, of
> course!


"The Bait" is by almost any standard the worst F&GM story, for all the reasons you cite. Leiber is an odd creature when it comes to women. He was comically sexist at times, and at others he bends over backwards to make an entire story a quasi-feminist argument of sorts. I'm thinking of "The Two Best Thieves in Lankhmar" here, as well as parts of a few other stories. Heck, in one or more of the stories in Knight and Knave of Swords he has ex-paramours of the Twain starting a feminist collective in Ilthmar (or Sarheenmar, can't recall), a reference which clearly repudiates the past behavior of Fafhrd and the Mouser, who as you say are "sex-pests" at times. I would argue The Mouser is by far the creepier of the two in this way; Fafhrd's a decent fellow with a strong but wholesome libido, while his companion verges into near-sadism and other sexual bizarrerie on a few occasions. I think it boils down to Leiber essentially being a bit sex-crazed, a lot repressed, but generally on the "right" side of feminist issues. Let's remember, in the sixties-thru-eighties when this phase of the saga was being written, Ursula Le Guin and other female writers were being published in Playboy magazine. It's easy to see why some of this falls flat now, but at the time it might have seemed to him that "sexual liberation" was his theme.

Radovarl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin, yes I of course agree that these are
> purely matters of taste. While I enjoy Smith's
> style immensely, and really like the exalted
> language of his "extended prose poem" short
> stories, I find it more difficult to become
> invested in his characters. I cannot bring myself
> to identify as much with his characters, however
> memorable, as I can with the flawed, oh too human
> characters of the Fafhrd and Gray Mouse saga (the
> Twain, also secondary characters). They feel
> "real" in a way CAS's don't. But clearly that is
> not what every reader is seeking, and not every
> reader is into that vibe all of the time, and
> obviously that's cool.

I think that this is a fair assessment, re accessibility of characters developed. F & the Mouser are knowable in the sense that they stem from, basically, a college jock (Fafhrd) and a principled opportunist, like Bugs Bunny (Mouser).

CAS's most effective characters are selected from strata that we're unlikely to have ever met--profoundly warped characters in the mold of Charles Manson, obsessives like Faust, and other such exotics. He lets us see inside their psyches.

To me, some of his less effective characters are drawn from more common folk, as in The Charnel God.

--Sawfish

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

I think you're slightly unkind to Fafhrd with the "college jock" label (he's more thoughtful and less of a bully than that implies), but dead-on with likening the Mouser to Bugs Bunny, which has me chuckling.

I agree that CAS attempts characterizations which are less easy to identify with, and succeeds admirably in some cases. But I also think part of this is that he had much few social contacts than Leiber the social butterfly, whose experience of actual living breathing human beings was vastly greater than CAS's. This leads to more realistic depictions, I would say, of a wider variety of types.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 19 Sep 21 | 12:26PM by Radovarl.

Radovarl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think you're slightly unkind to Fafhrd with the
> "college jock" label (he's more thoughtful and
> less of a bully than that implies), but dead-on
> with likening the Mouser to Bugs Bunny, which has
> me chuckling.


Hah! I'm glad you found it amusing!

More seriously, I was a BIG fan of these stories back in my early 20s. On re-reading some, I realized that they're something like watching a James Bond film, in that you know, essentially, what you'll be getting.

It's probably the same reason I don't watch James Bond films anymore.

--Sawfish

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

Perhaps we can agree that both Lovecraft, and Smith, and Leiber, all three of them belong, their work belongs in the realm of poetic consciousness. But the act of moralizing over them, and over their work, and in recent years even calling on censorship of their and other contemporaries' work, belongs in the realm of sociological consciousness.

Anyway, I hear that Leiber's "The Black Gondolier" is good. Any of you have read it?

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> CAS's most effective characters are selected from
> strata that we're unlikely to have ever
> met--profoundly warped characters in the mold of
> Charles Manson, obsessives like Faust, and other
> such exotics. He lets us see inside their
> psyches.
>
>

Spot on. And that is part of CAS's attraction for me. He creates his own complete fantasy milieu. Not simply copying the mundane Earth around him, its landscape views, and characters. He has also pointed this out in his letters, that he preferred to create everything in his worlds; discussing this with Lovecraft, who preferred to stay with one foot in the world. Is not CAS's approach the purest form of fantasy?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 19 Sep 21 | 01:15PM by Knygatin.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >
> > CAS's most effective characters are selected
> from
> > strata that we're unlikely to have ever
> > met--profoundly warped characters in the mold
> of
> > Charles Manson, obsessives like Faust, and
> other
> > such exotics. He lets us see inside their
> > psyches.
> >
> >
>
> Spot on. And that is part of CAS's attraction for
> me. He creates his own complete fantasy milieu.
> Not simply copying the mundane Earth around him,
> its landscape views, and characters. He has also
> pointed this out in his letters, that he preferred
> to create everything in his worlds; discussing
> this with Lovecraft, who preferred to stay with
> one foot in the world. Is not CAS's approach the
> purest form of fantasy?


Quick question, K.

For a long time I have often taken greater interest in the antagonist than in the protagonist. I felt this profoundly in Milton's Paradise Lost.

Now, you get a lot of sorta "campy" exaggerations, such as Hannibal Lechter, but better drawn characters (none of which come to mind right now) have seemed to me much more interesting in their motives and their worldview.

This doesn't mean that I agree with these outlooks, but often they are comprehensible as they relate to satisfying the id. Conversely, when protagonists seem to do the "right" thing without apparent effort or inner struggle, this is unconvincing to me.

Hah! So I guess a convincing and interesting protagonist is one who with great effort resists the id for the sake of the "good", while the interesting antagonist accepts the dictates of the id at face value and seeks to satisfy them.

When either simply does "good" because they like it, or "bad" because they like it, it's uninteresting to me.

--Sawfish

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

"It's probably the same reason I don't watch James Bond films anymore."

I totally understand that. I read all of the Ian Fleming novels and was a fan of all the films back in the day, but cannot bear to watch five minutes of one now. They're grotesque. There is definitely a bit of the same thing going on with F&GM, for me as well, though to his credit I think Leiber evolved somewhat (maybe "slightly" would be more accurate) over the course of his career in that respect (with the exception of "The Bait", LOL, and some other missteps).

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps we can agree that both Lovecraft, and
> Smith, and Leiber, all three of them belong, their
> work belongs in the realm of poetic consciousness.
> But the act of moralizing over them, and over
> their work, and in recent years even calling on
> censorship of their and other contemporaries'
> work, belongs in the realm of sociological
> consciousness.
>
> Anyway, I hear that Leiber's "The Black Gondolier"
> is good. Any of you have read it?

Yes (I believe I've read all of Leiber's short stories). Do you mean the collection as a whole or the eponymous story? I recall liking the story well enough, though it's not a favorite. If I recall correctly, the premise has something to do with Venice, California (hence the gondolier reference) and was one his more gimmicky "horror" shorts. I much prefer his more semi-autobiographical horror such as "Horrible Imagining" or Our Lady of Darkness. But definitely worth giving a try, like most of his work.

I'm still getting up to speed on your poetic/sociological consciousness dichotomy, but if you mean that these three authors themselves are engaging in purely poetic expression *without* trying to "moralize" or make some sort of social commentary, I'm not sure that's so much the case with Lovecraft and Leiber as it might well be with Smith. I certainly understand the appeal of art for arts sake, and I think CAS is closer to that than the others. Pardon if I'm misunderstanding.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 19 Sep 21 | 02:04PM by Radovarl.

Radovarl Wrote:

> I'm still getting up to speed on your
> poetic/sociological consciousness dichotomy, but
> if you mean that these three authors themselves
> are engaging in purely poetic expression *without*
> trying to "moralize" or make some sort of social
> commentary, I'm not sure that's so much the case
> with Lovecraft and Leiber as it might well be with
> Smith. I certainly understand the appeal of art
> for arts sake, and I think CAS is closer to that
> than the others. Pardon if I'm misunderstanding.

Radovarl, I have no copyright for "poetic consciousness" vs. "sociological consciousness," but was the party who introduced them here at ED about two months ago.

You'll find a thread with many postings that discusses this topic, here at ED. Relevant to the topic also is an earlier thread on the buffered self vs. the porous self. The buffered self is characteristic of sociological consciousness, while the porous self is common with poetic consciousness.

The academic discipline of sociology is different from "sociological consciousness." Sociology I take to be a tool that may be some utility for some lines of inquiry. But sociological consciousness perceives sociology as more or less adequate to the full range of specifically human experience. (It would allow the value of biology and chemistry to some aspects of human experience, but these would generally be ones we chare with animals, matters of DNA, glands, diseases, etc.) Sociological consciousness is attention to those things that sociology can deal with, and the assumption that these things are "all there is" for our reality as human beings. This I take to be the normal state of consciousness of educated people in North America, Europe, etc. Donald Trump and Ibram X. Kenid both, so far as I can tell, understand the world in terms of "sociological consciousness." Election campaigns will be run on the basis of sociological consciousness, and the contending platforms will be, basically, documents written from within that state of attention. Children in public schools, students and faculty in universities, popular entertainers and journalists, philosophers and doctors, etc. may go day by day and hardly suspect there could be more possibilities than sociological consciousness perceives.

Robert Aickman wrote of the "beliefs that one day, by the application of reason and the scientific method, everything will be known, and every problem and unhappiness solved." This Enlightenment view is close to "sociological consciousness.

In contrast to it is what I take to have been the consciousness of most people who have ever lived. Here is something a Russian statesman wrote:

“Only fools have clear conceptions of everything. The most cherished ideas of the human mind are found in the depths and in twilight: around these confused ideas which we cannot classify revolve clear thoughts, extending, developing, and becoming elevated. If this deeper mental plane were to be taken away, there would remain but geometricians and intelligent animals; even the exact sciences would lose their present grandeur, which depends upon a hidden correlation with eternal truths, of which we catch a glimpse only at rare moments. Mystery is the most precious possession of mankind. Not in vain did Plato teach that all below is but a weak image of the order reigning above. It may be, indeed, that the grandest function of the loveliness we see is the awakening of desire for a higher loveliness we see not; and that the enchantment of great poets springs less from the pictures they paint than from the distant echoes they awaken from the invisible world.”

The Russian statesman's view is flowery, empty language from the point of view of sociological consciousness. S. C. being typically focused on social power, people will naturally tend to dismiss or mistrust the statement just quoted. "Mystery is the most precious possession of mankind" -- ! Try saying that in any college classroom and watch what happens.

For sociological consciousness, "mystery" can mean only puzzles that, in principle, we can resolve if we apply our methods to the necessary data -- data which They might be trying to keep from us!!

For poetic consciousness, mystery can mean that sort of thing but, much more, and distinctly, it can mean something that inherently can't be resolved, reduced, to knowledge. Mystery in this sense can be contemplated -- or it can be, by sociological consciousness, ignored, denied, explained away, traduced.

OK, I hope that helps.

Now it seems to me that a tool like this can help us to get at some interesting things in connection with authors that people here at ED like to read. For example, I have a thesis, that Lovecraft was a profoundly divided man. With one side of himself, he experienced poetic consciousness: for example, when he contemplated sunsets across the old roofs of his beloved Providence. But with the other side of himself he was aligned with the typical modern outlook described by Aickman. Lovecraft's letters are replete with "sociological consciousness." Conversely, Arthur Machen remained within the bounds of poetic consciousness. Read his best book, Far-Off Things (his first autobiography). The taproot that grew in his boyhood remains alive, drawing nourishment from memories of Usk but also present experience of wandering London suburbs and gathering over wine with cronies. He not only appreciates poetry in the wide sense -- imaginative literature as discussed in another of his best books, Hieroglyphics (we have a thread about that here at ED -- but his life itself is poetic. Is George W. Bush's or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's?

Children, I believe, begin life experiencing poetic consciousness, but it is soon pushed to the margins by TV, internet games, school indoctrination, etc. Fortunately, some children fare better, outside the system.

Finally, I think sociological consciousness prevails in some writers of fantasy. If an author demonstrates an ironic amusement towards his own invented world, and needs you the reader to know he's a sophisticated person, well... he might move fantasy-type pieces around on the board, but perhaps little real poetry will be involved. Cabell? Dunsany? They might not be happy with the "sociological" regime around them; but they don't have much hope that there really is anything much else........

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps we can agree that both Lovecraft, and
> Smith, and Leiber, all three of them belong, their
> work belongs in the realm of poetic consciousness.
> But the act of moralizing over them, and over
> their work, and in recent years even calling on
> censorship of their and other contemporaries'
> work, belongs in the realm of sociological
> consciousness.


That might not be what I'd say, Knygatin. Poetic consciousness typically recognizes an objective moral standard. There is rather impressive agreement -- despite what we are told by the sociologically conscious -- between various cultures, about such moral matters as respect due elders, the virtues of loyalty, fidelity, courage, trustworthiness, patience, self-control, modesty, etc.

Sociological consciousness takes just certain elements of morality and distorts and inflates them. For example, it takes one of the virtues -- fairness -- and distorts it, like a face out of proportion thanks to goiter, say. In the name of fairness (now dubbed "equity") it may exhibit deficiency as regards other equally important virtues, such as prudence, self-control, justice, temperance,* etc.

I do understand that there is a difference between politicized "moralizing" and making legitimate moral judgments. The latter is essential. The former is apt to be a nuisance or worse as we see with various current events.

*"Temperance" means more than just sue measure in consumption of strong drink. A man who drinks too much is intemperate, but so is a squalling mob of students shouting down a teacher who is trying to get a hearing for a reasonable opinion.

""Temperance" means more than just sue measure" -- sorry, that's supposed to be DUE measure.

And I don’t mean to imply that the false belief Aickman noted, that through reason and scientific method every problem and unhappiness would be solved, was Lovecraft’s; HPL wasn’t a progressive at least mist of his life; but I do think he thought of problems that he saw as basically social, and that would probably worsen, but theoretically could improve if certain types of people would go away. Furthermore I’ve read that he was becoming somewhat socialistic late in life. This thread, of course, is not dedicated to the discussion of HPL; I wanted to refer to him in a reply to comments about poetic consciousness and sociological consciousness made here and in other places.

Good points Sawfish, about the complexity of protagonists and antagonists. The more easy way out, of ignoring such complexity, usually results in lame or stale stories.

Radovarl, I meant the short-story "The Black Gondolier", not the collection. Hearing your description of it, I don't think it sounds like an overly interesting read for me. But I may eventually come around to it, in an old Ace paperback I have.

Dale, I understand your argument on the different levels of moralizing.



Back to defining the purest forms of fantasy. Instead of copying sights from the world, the more developed fantasy artist seeks inspiration from what he sees and then creates something uniquely his own. He doesn't simply use technical skills to create an illusion of realism or naturalism (something very common today in "fantasy art"; something I blame on the ever increasing materialism of society), but also uses poetic interpretation of what he sees.
Now, I don' believe a human being living on Earth can completely detach himself and his images from the Earth (except possibly through deeper astral levels of consciousness). But much can be done creatively to reinterpret and reshape what one sees, through poetic consciousness. That is the path to purer forms of fantasy. C. A. Smith strove towards this in a complete sense when painting his canvas.
Both Lovecraft and Leiber (and Howard) preferred to keep one foot in the world, for the sense of realism. But still with a subtle sense of poetry for that half too. Leiber and Howard taking it one step further, choosing to recreate lost times of the world and society.
But really, ... I am fumbling here in the realms of sociological consciousness, trying to define what these poetic geniuses were doing. ... How futile. How heavy-handed. One should be quiet really, and simply appreciate. And if one wants to make a personal statement, it should be through creativity in the same vein. Criticism, ah what a waste of effort.

Thanks, guys. I think I now understand the distinction you're drawing between the two types of consciousness. As one perhaps overly-indoctrinated into institutional, and therefore if I understand correctly, "sociological" modes of conceiving of the world, I should probably take a few days to mull over the notion before I attempt to contribute anything further to the discussion. Despite being trained as a sociologist (to be clear, I have never *worked* as a sociologist), I am sympathetic to those who view life from a primarily "poetic" perspective if I am not indeed one such. I suspect many of the concepts in my own hyper-socialized (a good read in this regard is Dennis K. Wrong's "The Oversocialized Conception of Man in Modern Sociology") toolbox (see, instrumental thinking!) "marry up" to these in what might be interesting ways, but it'll take some rumination to sort it all out.

Am I correct in surmising that you (all) feel that the "sociological" side of the dichotomy has been granted an overwhelmingly privileged status in (at least) the modern worldview, and that the "poetic" side has been impoverished as a result? (with the obvious exception of the some of the writers being discussed)?

[EDIT: I will also do some background reading in the other threads devoted to the topic, as you suggest.]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 20 Sep 21 | 05:58AM by Radovarl.

Knygatin Wrote:

> Back to defining the purest forms of fantasy.
> Instead of copying sights from the world, the more
> developed fantasy artist seeks inspiration from
> what he sees and then creates something uniquely
> his own. He doesn't simply use technical skills to
> create an illusion of realism or naturalism
> (something very common today in "fantasy art";
> something I blame on the ever increasing
> materialism of society), but also uses poetic
> interpretation of what he sees.
> Now, I don' believe a human being living on Earth
> can completely detach himself and his images from
> the Earth (except possibly through deeper astral
> levels of consciousness). But much can be done
> creatively to reinterpret and reshape what one
> sees, through poetic consciousness. That is the
> path to purer forms of fantasy. C. A. Smith strove
> towards this in a complete sense when painting his
> canvas.
> Both Lovecraft and Leiber (and Howard) preferred
> to keep one foot in the world, for the sense of
> realism. But still with a subtle sense of poetry
> for that half too. Leiber and Howard taking it one
> step further, choosing to recreate lost times of
> the world and society.
> But really, ... I am fumbling here in the realms
> of sociological consciousness, trying to define
> what these poetic geniuses were doing. ... How
> futile. How heavy-handed. One should be quiet
> really, and simply appreciate. And if one wants to
> make a personal statement, it should be through
> creativity in the same vein. Criticism, ah what a
> waste of effort.

Knygatin, I begin today's postings at ED with the request that you would send a list of works in which you find exhibited this quality you love. That would be a valuable resource.

As I recall, works you have identified, here at ED, as exhibiting this genius include:

The magazine version of "The Moon Pool" by A. Merritt
Parts, but not the whole, of Merritt's Metal Monster
Stories by CAS and Jack Vance -- could you list specific ones again?
Stories by Leiber including "The Jewels in the Forest," "The Lords of Quarmall," "The Circle Curse," "The Unholy Grail," "When the Sea-King's Away," and "The Sunken Land" plus the novel The Swords of Lankhmar
G. Meyrink's The Golem (or am I mistaken about that one?)

You approved Sir Philip Sidney's Defense of Poesy, as well.

I wonder if you would add William Hope Hodgson's The Night Land and The House on the Borderland. Eddison's Worm OUroboros? What's your view of Tolkien's Silmarillion? Tolkien generally writes about the world of the First Age (and even before it) as if it were another world, not ours. Men hardly appear in much of it, rather Elves and "Gods," and the shape of the world is very different from that of today's Earth.

You wrote favorably of Dunsany's Charwoman's Shadow, if I remember correctly, but perhaps you wouldn't group it with these favorites.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 20 Sep 21 | 11:02AM by Dale Nelson.

Excellent exchange, Radovarl.

My comments/responses, interleaved, below:

Radovarl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks, guys. I think I now understand the
> distinction you're drawing between the two types
> of consciousness. As one perhaps
> overly-indoctrinated into institutional, and
> therefore if I understand correctly,
> "sociological" modes of conceiving of the world, I
> should probably take a few days to mull over the
> notion before I attempt to contribute anything
> further to the discussion. Despite being trained
> as a sociologist

That's all right, Radovarl; none of us is perfect at ED...

;^)

> (to be clear, I have never
> *worked* as a sociologist),I am sympathetic to
> those who view life from a primarily "poetic"
> perspective if I am not indeed one such. I suspect
> many of the concepts in my own hyper-socialized (a
> good read in this regard is Dennis K. Wrong's "The
> Oversocialized Conception of Man in Modern
> Sociology") toolbox (see, instrumental thinking!)
> "marry up" to these in what might be interesting
> ways, but it'll take some rumination to sort it
> all out.

I've developed a profound mistrust of the anthropological soft sciences because of what I perceive to be an increasingly strong tendency to confirmation bias.

I *do* read some stuff relating to human interactions on the broader scale (cultural values, etc) but it's mostly to learn where the recognized "landmarks" are.

Then I take this, watch some old Jane Goodall documentaries, add my personal experiences, and combine it all, ceaselessly churning it, to come up with my worldview--which constantly evolves.

In fact, that's a big reason why I'm here, posting.

>
> Am I correct in surmising that you (all) feel that
> the "sociological" side of the dichotomy has been
> granted an overwhelmingly privileged status in (at
> least) the modern worldview, and that the "poetic"
> side has been impoverished as a result? (with the
> obvious exception of the some of the writers being
> discussed)?
>
>

I think we're still kicking it around. You'll note that I wanted to compare social consciousness (SC) with Freud's idea of the superego. To me, it *may* be a close fit, but I tend to think that poetic consciousness (PC) is a subset of the id.

I think many of us see the dichotomy as being distinct, near mutually exclusive traits within each individual, with the more socialized individuals being influenced more by SC in their daily--and perhaps personal--lives.

I see it as a sort of ying/yang complement, with SC and PC in the ascendance depending upon the situation.

But I will agree that when one or the other dominates--and especially in aspects of life that have little or no relevance to either (e.g., PC in criminal justice; SC in aesthetic appreciation), it becomes annoying and inane.

And I do agree that eras seem to value one or the other more highly, and we seem to be currently in an era where SC is *extremely* ascendant.

But these are only my personal opinions.

--Sawfish

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

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Knygatin, I begin today's postings at ED with the
> request that you would send a list of works in
> which you find exhibited this quality you love.
> That would be a valuable resource.
>
>

I am sorry, but I cannot do that. Too demanding and difficult to define which exact works that would be, and I am not certain myself. There may be glimmerings of poetic fantasy in a lot of varied works. Sure, I include Tolkien and Hodgson among them. (Never read Eddison and Meyrink.) The writers I usually talk about here, are the ones I like best I suppose, but I may like a certain book (or film) for various other reasons than pure fantasy (for instance, the sense of home in Tolkien and Lovecraft, is a big attraction). Ones' needs are complex and multileveled, and not easy to organize into a neat, square box.

But my highest artistic ideals? The purest form of fantasy in which the physical phenomena and views of the Earth are completely reshaped and recreated into something else??? I am not even sure it has ever been done completely. CAS had the ambition, but I don't think that even he reached quite all the way, except in a few passing details possibly. It may be an unrealistic ambition. But the ecstatic poetic longing for the weird, may carry it a long way.

OK, Knygatin!

If you care to add some suggested stories, though, that seem to you outstanding... go ahead!

Thanks for clarifying about Eddison and Meyrink.

I've read the first half of The Night Land[i] once or twice, but I bog down with the second half. I do mean to try again. I suppose I've read [i]The House on the Borderland four times.

Have you read Lindsay's A Voyage to Arcturus?

But I realize I'm digressing from this thread's focus on Fritz Leiber. Hope that's OK.

Here's an article about editor Cele Goldsmith, who played a major role in the revival of sword-and-sorcery fiction in the early 1960s. She published a lot by Fritz Leiber.

[galacticjourney.org]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 26 Sep 21 | 02:07PM by Dale Nelson.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dale Nelson Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Knygatin, since you've read so many of these
> > Fafhrd - Mouser stories recently, I gather,
> would
> > you like to name some of the stories that you
> > think are the best, along with The Swords of
> > Lankhmar?
>
>
> My absolute favorite story is "The Jewels in the
> Forest". One of his earliest. It is very exciting,
> and has some fine fantastic/magical situations. It
> opens with an ancient description of the year,
> month, and day (sort of like Clark Ashton Smith),
> and then succinctly captures an atmospheric
> bucolic scene, like a painting by Bruegel.
>
> Before that, the "The Circle Curse" begins the
> book, introducing the sorcerer Sheelba of the
> Eyeless Face who lives in a walking hut. Any story
> featuring Sheelba and the walking hut is
> worthwhile. It returns with full force in The
> Swords of Lankhmar.
>
> "The Sunken Land" is memorable.
>
> "When the Sea-King's Away" is a great little
> underwater adventure. Imaginative.
>
> Anyone interested in mountain-climbing should find
> "Stardock" interesting.
>
> "The Lords of Quarmall" is a very dark underground
> drama. Not a particular favorite though, too much
> jumbly back and forth actions.


Knygatin, I got the 1957 Gnome Press edition of the Faf-Mouser stories, Two Sought Adventure, on interlibrary loan, and expect to read it. It contains:

"Induction"
"The Jewels in the Forest"
"Thieves' House"
"The Bleak Shore"
"The Howling Tower"
"The Sunken Land"
"The Seven Black Priests"
"Claws from the Night"

I've read the first two items. I didn't expect the surprise twist about the misanthropic wizard's tower. I'd have been pretty pleased with myself to think of that, back when I was writing sword-and-sorcery stories.

These are not stories that bring me great delight, but I enjoyed "Thieves' House" more than the entertaining "Jewels," and "The Bleak Shore" more than "Thieves' House."

It wouldn't have been appropriate for Conan to fall under a curse spoken by Death itself, as happens to the Mouser & Fafhrd here. Something like that could have happened in a Dunsany story, but I don't suppose one would have cared what happened to the characters; nor would the outcome of the story have been the same.

I wondered if just possibly Ursula Le Guin's third and, for a long time, final Earthsea novel, [i]The Farthest Shore[i], owed anything to this story, which Le Guin had almost certainly read.

Now I've read "The Howling Tower," and I suppose this one impresses me the most of the four so far. (In fact I think this might have influenced me in one of those sword-and-sorcery-type stories I wrote so long ago, a thing called "A Sojourn in Pasgue.") It's a long time since I read Metclafe's "The Bad Lands" -- is there something akin to this Leiber story in that one? Some kind of eerie desolate locale?

I'll be surprised if any of the remaining stories in Two Sought Adventure get to me as much as this one did with its strange imagery of the tower in the prairie and the eeriness of the "howling."

It sounds like you are in a hurry to get it done with. I should find it difficult to savour the subtleties of the prose and the finer details of the stories, under such circumstances.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'll be surprised if any of the remaining stories
> in Two Sought Adventure get to me as much as this
> one did with its strange imagery of the tower in
> the prairie and the eeriness of the "howling."
>

Your own hunting grounds up in North Dakota. ;) Fritz Leiber uses a wide array of settings.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It sounds like you are in a hurry to get it done
> with. I should find it difficult to savour the
> subtleties of the prose and the finer details of
> the stories, under such circumstances.

This copy is a library book, so I do have to return it by early next month, but I expect to complete the reading within a few days — plenty of time to spare. I guess if I were missing things by the way I’m reading it as my recreational book of the moment, I might not realize it, so I don’t know how answerable your implied constructive criticism is. : )

In what I’ve been writing on the stories this week, I haven’t intended that anyone should take my comments as more than notes or brief comments. If anyone finds something of interest and value in them, that’s good. They’re not intended to be close readings that unpack the stories in detail.

While I have the book, if you want to direct my attention to certain passages or topics, I might be able to respond. Anyway, thank you.

It was some years ago I read those stories in his second collection, and don't remember much more than I have mentioned above. "The Sunken Land" is a sort of Atlantis tale, mostly memorable to me for its dripping wet setting. All I recall from "The Seven Black Priests" is a skidding race down a snowy slope, which was "entertaining" enough and rather silly.

I don't plan to read Leiber again in a while. Though I am curious about The Wanderer. I also have a lovely collection called The Leiber Chronicles (and The Best of Fritz Leiber) with a wide array of short stories, which I may dip into now and again.

I like visual writers, and Leiber is very good at that (like his peers Smith and Vance). He is also shrewd at psychology, and has a lot of humor. But I find him a bit too materialistic to satisfy me completely.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 7 Oct 21 | 07:22AM by Knygatin.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Fritz Leiber has a lot of humor.
>

I might add that The Swords of Lankhmar is perhaps the funniest, and most consistently ecstatic, book I have ever read.

I was thinking about the range of story types in modern fantasy (that is, the fantasy that includes the Fafhrd and Mouser stories, The Lord of the Rings, etc.). It's a wide range!

The Lord of the Rings shows strongly a beginning, middle, and end -- even though we know an enormous amount happened before the main story starts with the aged Bilbo's birthday party, and even though we are told briefly about some events occurring after Frodo and his hobbit companions set things right in the Shire. This main story takes just a matter of months. The Lord of the Rings shows a strong quality of unity in this way.

But modern fantasy also includes story cycles to which any number of "episodes" could be added or (if the author had wished) subtracted. Here's a thought experiment. Let's suppose that Robert E. Howard didn't commit suicide. He thought "enemies" in Cross Plains were going to get him, so he faked a suicide and took off. He didn't know about the Gnome Press editions of his stories -- mixed with new ones by other authors -- that appeared while he was around 50 years old; these were small press publications, after all, not likely to be seen in ordinary book stores. But Lancer began to publish paperbacks of Conan stories, some by Howard, some by de Camp, Carter, and Nyberg, beginning about the time Bob Howard had turned 60. These he did see. He got his identity legally established and alerted Lancer and de Camp etc. to his being alive, and told them to stop publication of his stories and the writing of stories with his character. So now Bob Howard has control of his creative work.

He could exploit its money-making potential to the maximum. But Bob doesn't need the money. He's been successful in the career he took up after faking his death. He had married and has a nice home and he's already put his kids through college. He decides that he wants to issue a revised Conan saga that represents his best work in that form. So he decides to weed out stories such as "The Vale of Lost Women." And the point I'm making is that this is easy.* The Conan cycle is very loose. When Howard or de Camp or Carter added a story, nothing really changed as far as the character's life was concerned. Likewise, Howard, now in his early 60s, decides to add a couple of new stories. There need be no problem with that, either! The Conan cycle is very loose. Howard can add beads to the necklace or take them off the string. He might have undertaken a great de-cluttering of the Conan cycle. The stories he rejected, he could say were false legends recorded in the Nemedian Chronicles, but a new and better manuscript has come to light, so....

Well, I see the Fafhrd and Mouser stories as a cycle like the Conan stories. I suspect that at various points in his life Leiber may have thought he wouldn't be writing any more of them; but if editors were interested, he could do so. So, when Cele Goldsmith edited Fantastic, he added some stories not in the Gnome Press book and Goldsmith bought them. Then there were no new ones for a while, except one or two ("Ill Met in Lankhmar") in The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, till Ted White proved interested in buying new stories for Fantastic and Stuart Schiff for Whispers, etc. Sword and sorcery really caught on in the 1960s and 1970s, and Leiber had a market again. Leiber could go on freely adding new stories. But suppose the time came when he decided he wanted to publish the best stories as the authentic F&GM chronicle. Easy! Just as I've suggested with Howard, he could posit that the rejected stories were bogus interpolations in the sources. The cycle is loose; Leiber could add or subtract freely.

Is there something in the modern fantasy genre that falls between the relatively tightly-constructed variety at one end of a spectrum and the loose story-cycle at the other end? I think so: what about Mervyn Peake's Titus Groan/Gormenghast world? You do have the trajectory of Titus's birth-boyhood-young manhood, in which he leaves Gormenghast; on the other hand, Peake seems to have seen the sequence as open-ended; he could have gone on to polish the third book and to write one or more further ones if his health hadn't broken down. It seems as if the Titus oeuvre could have begun as something relatively tightly constructed that became open-ended. I don't know.



*Arthur Conan Doyle could've done the same thing if he'd wanted to. He could have posited that any number of Dr. Watson's stories were imaginary "cases" in which Watson and Sherlock Holmes set up a puzzle, a mystery, then figured out how SH would have solved it if it had really occurred. The authentic cases would be just such-and-such stories.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 7 Oct 21 | 11:03AM by Dale Nelson.

Knygatin, I checked out The Conan Grimoire, a book of reprints from the fanzine Amra, from the library. It has "Fafhrd and Me" by Fritz Leiber. If that's not in any of your books, I could scan it for you if you want to read it. It's about Leiber's beginning of writing the series. Just email me if interested.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 7 Oct 21 | 04:07PM by Dale Nelson.

Thanks, but please do not do that. I have piles of reading material, and don't have time to read all.


Fritz Leiber also acted in the student film Equinox, which has some nice stop motion animation by the great Dave Allen and matte paintings by the phenomenal Jim Danforth.