Hello!
I have a question and I think you could answer me. Is "The Werewolf of Averoigne" from the book The Klarkash-Ton Cycle a full version of the synopsis? Look at the contents, it seems that the story has 17 pages: [www.isfdb.org]

If so, idk of it is possible to read it

Thnaks :D



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 23 Sep 22 | 02:43PM by Manuel.

Manuel Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hello!
> I have a question and I think you could answer me.
> Is "The Werewolf of Averoigne" from the book The
> Klarkash-Ton Cycle a full version of the synopsis?
> Look at the contents, it seems that the story has
> 17 pages:
> [www.isfdb.org]
>
> If so, idk of it is possible to read it
>
> Thnaks :D

I have not seen the book you refer to (one of those ridiculous "Chaosium" anthologies grafting unrelated writings into a pseudo-Lovecraftian mold), but the 17 pages you mention may refer to Smith's full development of the synopsis, in his tale of "The Enchantress of Sylaire". That can be found in the 1981 Timescape paperback "The City of the Singing Flame". It's worth seeking out-- probably the best vintage selection of Smith tales in paperback, with intro, "Poet of the Singing Flame" by Donald Sidney-Fryer

jkh

I was mistaken, not "The Enchantress of Sylaire", but "The Beast of Averoigne," is the story in question, which is also in the same paperback I mentioned. Smith's revision of "The Beast of Averoigne" (the first published version), is much better than his original draft with its unwieldy epistolary mode of plot development. The same goes for "The Satyr" and "The Return of the Sorcerer". Smith's revised endings for both improve upon his original drafts. Editors Connors and Hilger preferred the original versions of "The Beast of Averoigne" and "The Satyr", unfortunately. A fourth tale to consider in this regard is "The Black Abbot of Puthuum". Smith cut out what the editors called "a romantic sub-plot", which appears as an appendix in The Last Hieroglyph (Collected Fantasies Vol. 5). I am not sure that I agree with them in this case either. Does the sub-plot really contribute nothing of value to the story as the textual notes claim? It appears that the editors based their decision on a devaluation of character development, but isn't that one of the traits that make Smith's best stories more impressive than Lovecraft's, in the last analysis? Other than his short novels, The Case of Charles Dexter Ward and At the Mountains of Madness, I don't rate Lovecraft's fiction as being on the same level of excellence as Smith's, excluding of course the lesser examples of the latter's work, i.e., the sci-fi stuff he wrote more out of financial need than artistic inspiration, with a few exceptions.

jkh

Interleaved, below:

Kipling Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was mistaken, not "The Enchantress of Sylaire",
> but "The Beast of Averoigne," is the story in
> question, which is also in the same paperback I
> mentioned. Smith's revision of "The Beast of
> Averoigne" (the first published version), is much
> better than his original draft with its unwieldy
> epistolary mode of plot development. The same goes
> for "The Satyr" and "The Return of the Sorcerer".
> Smith's revised endings for both improve upon his
> original drafts. Editors Connors and Hilger
> preferred the original versions of "The Beast of
> Averoigne" and "The Satyr", unfortunately. A
> fourth tale to consider in this regard is "The
> Black Abbot of Puthuum". Smith cut out what the
> editors called "a romantic sub-plot", which
> appears as an appendix in The Last Hieroglyph
> (Collected Fantasies Vol. 5). I am not sure that I
> agree with them in this case either. Does the
> sub-plot really contribute nothing of value to the
> story as the textual notes claim?

Let's see...

This is the one with the Mouser/Ffaferd characters who are to escort a girl to some emperor's harem?

They eventually kill the lustful abbot and they decide to gamble to see who gets the girl, but she decides otherwise by selecting one over the other?

If the sub-plot is additional to this, where does it fit?

> It appears that
> the editors based their decision on a devaluation
> of character development, but isn't that one of
> the traits that make Smith's best stories more
> impressive than Lovecraft's, in the last analysis?
> Other than his short novels, The Case of Charles
> Dexter Ward and At the Mountains of Madness, I
> don't rate Lovecraft's fiction as being on the
> same level of excellence as Smith's, excluding of
> course the lesser examples of the latter's work,
> i.e., the sci-fi stuff he wrote more out of
> financial need than artistic inspiration, with a
> few exceptions.

--Sawfish

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

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Interleaved, below:
>
> Kipling Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> ---- Editors Connors and Hilger
> > preferred the original versions of "The Beast of Averoigne" and "The Satyr", unfortunately. A fourth tale to consider in this regard is "The Black Abbot of Puthuum". Smith cut out what the
editors called "a romantic sub-plot", which appears as an appendix in The Last Hieroglyph (Collected Fantasies Vol. 5). I am not sure that I agree with them in this case either. Does the
sub-plot really contribute nothing of value to the story as the textual notes claim?
>
> Let's see...
>
> This is the one with the Mouser/Ffaferd characters
> who are to escort a girl to some emperor's harem?
>
> They eventually kill the lustful abbot and they
> decide to gamble to see who gets the girl, but she
> decides otherwise by selecting one over the other?
If the sub-plot is additional to this, where does it fit?

Well, my point is that the discarded sub-plot replaces, rather than adds to the story as resubmitted and sold. Two factors favor the retention, or reattachment as it were, of the sub-plot: firstly, it renders the result of the gambling for Rubalsa moot. Instead of Zubal winning the wench, only to see her "fling her arms about the neck of Cushara" (CF 5, p.161),she is instead reunited with her father in a richly ironic conclusion. In my opinion the pat, comedic ending detracts from the stark tone set by Zubal's adventure in "the reeking sepulchral gloom" (155) of the monastery's catacomb, where he converses with the ensorcelled corpse of Uldor, the former abbot. Also, Zubal's suggestion that the loser of the sortilege "will attend the winner as a true comrade" during a long and arduous journey (160) is hardly credible, but that's relatively unimportant. What does matter is the element of realism embodied in the sub-plot, which dovetails nicely with the aforementioned irony in the original manuscript version that editors Farnsworth Wright, and subsequently editors Connors and Hilger rejected. After all, it's only logical that the eunuch Simban, as "chief purveyor to Hoaraph's well-replenished harem" (145) would want to question Rubalsa's grandmother about her origins the way he does in the excised sub-plot, showing both his knowledge of Zothiquian women and his adeptness as the royal pimp in extracting information that he knows will make Rubalsa even more desirable to the King. This characterizes Simban effectively and adds to the reader's sense of horror when his screams are heard as Ujuk kills him. Instead, the pacing is too abrupt-- he just forks over the dough and the old crone disappears. So, yeah, Connors definitely dropped the ball big time by not reinstating Smith's prose, except as "Appendix Four". Bah!

jkh

Below:

Kipling Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Interleaved, below:
> >
> > Kipling Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > ---- Editors Connors and Hilger
> > > preferred the original versions of "The Beast
> of Averoigne" and "The Satyr", unfortunately. A
> fourth tale to consider in this regard is "The
> Black Abbot of Puthuum". Smith cut out what the
> editors called "a romantic sub-plot", which
> appears as an appendix in The Last Hieroglyph
> (Collected Fantasies Vol. 5). I am not sure that I
> agree with them in this case either. Does the
> sub-plot really contribute nothing of value to the
> story as the textual notes claim?
> >
> > Let's see...
> >
> > This is the one with the Mouser/Ffaferd
> characters
> > who are to escort a girl to some emperor's
> harem?
> >
> > They eventually kill the lustful abbot and they
> > decide to gamble to see who gets the girl, but
> she
> > decides otherwise by selecting one over the
> other?
> If the sub-plot is additional to this, where does
> it fit?
>
> Well, my point is that the discarded sub-plot
> replaces, rather than adds to the story as
> resubmitted and sold. Two factors favor the
> retention, or reattachment as it were, of the
> sub-plot: firstly, it renders the result of the
> gambling for Rubalsa moot. Instead of Zubal
> winning the wench, only to see her "fling her arms
> about the neck of Cushara" (CF 5, p.161),she is
> instead reunited with her father in a richly
> ironic conclusion. In my opinion the pat, comedic
> ending detracts from the stark tone set by Zubal's
> adventure in "the reeking sepulchral gloom" (155)
> of the monastery's catacomb, where he converses
> with the ensorcelled corpse of Uldor, the former
> abbot. Also, Zubal's suggestion that the loser of
> the sortilege "will attend the winner as a true
> comrade" during a long and arduous journey (160)
> is hardly credible, but that's relatively
> unimportant. What does matter is the element of
> realism embodied in the sub-plot, which dovetails
> nicely with the aforementioned irony in the
> original manuscript version that editors
> Farnsworth Wright, and subsequently editors
> Connors and Hilger rejected. After all, it's only
> logical that the eunuch Simban, as "chief purveyor
> to Hoaraph's well-replenished harem" (145) would
> want to question Rubalsa's grandmother about her
> origins the way he does in the excised sub-plot,
> showing both his knowledge of Zothiquian women and
> his adeptness as the royal pimp in extracting
> information that he knows will make Rubalsa even
> more desirable to the King. This characterizes
> Simban effectively and adds to the reader's sense
> of horror when his screams are heard as Ujuk kills
> him. Instead, the pacing is too abrupt-- he just
> forks over the dough and the old crone disappears.
> So, yeah, Connors definitely dropped the ball big
> time by not reinstating Smith's prose, except as
> "Appendix Four". Bah!


The way you describe it, to me it sounds better than the version I read, the shortened version.

Aside from superior imagery, I never thought much of the story. The pair of escorts really felt manufactured, in the sense of the trivial and light-hearted sword & sorcery tales. You get the same *structure* (experienced, cynical soldiers on a questionable do-or-die mission) in The Weaver in the Vault, but here the rowdy soldierly humor serves as a relief from the sense of advancing dread.\ and doom, which is realized in actuality, with no devil-may-care heroes emerging.

The reunion with her father... This could be interesting. He sold her, after all, didn't he? I'd like to see how CAS handled that.

Kipling, can you refer us to a source for the original version? Perhaps you did but...

Thanks.

--Sawfish

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