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.