I´d like to know what you think of Brian McNaughton. Recently I read a comment by S.T. Joshi that Smith´s true greatness is as a poet but that Mc Naughton is in his opinion a better prose writer than Smith.

Make sure when you read THE THRONE OF BONES that you read it in sequence - the tales work much better in context, where the bitterly ironic interlinks between one tale and another can be appreciated. I have enjoyed other works by McNaughton, but nothing else I have read approaches this level and much of it is pretty poor stuff.

Although I agree that Smith deserves to be best known for his poetry, I very much disagree that McNaughton's prose is superior. McNaughton consistently seeks his inspiration from muck and degradation; Smith does this on occasion, but is more apt to look up toward the empyrean. THE THRONE OF BONES is impressive, but its scope is limited. McNaughton does not strive to arouse awe in his readers, and there is nothing in his work like the range of effects, exotic imagery, cosmic sweep, and stunning verbal magic of such Smith tales as "The Dark Eidolon", "Xeethra", or "The City of the Singing Flame", "The Maze of the Enchanter".

At their best, Smith's tales in prose are crafted as carefully as his poems and achieve effects at which McNaughton does not even aim.

As much as I enjoy McNaughton's work (and his untimely death was a major loss to the field), S. T.'s remarks about his superiority to Smith as a writer of prose cannot be regarded as anything but an attempt at being overly gracious.

Quote:

S. T.'s remarks about his superiority to Smith as a writer of prose cannot be regarded as anything but an attempt at being overly gracious.

To whom? Certainly not to CAS! I had heard that Joshi was finally re-assessing his, not to put too fine a point on it, ridiculous evaluation of CAS's prose, but it appears that old prejudices die hard. CAS is not a gifted story-teller, but, among Twentieth-Century authors, his poetic prose is second only to that of Julien Gracq's, in my estimation.

Joshi was of course being gracious to McBaughton; since CAS is deceased, it would not be possible to be gracious toward him. He has indeed somewhat revised his opinion of CAS' short stories upwards, and wrote an excellent piece on the prose poems for THE FREEDOM OF FANTASTIC THINGS.
One point to keep in mind about Joshi and Smith: his first exposure to Smith's fiction was TALES OF SCIENCE AND SORCERY and OTHER DIMENSIONS, while mine was HYPERBOREA and ZOTHIQUE, followed quickly by OUT OF SPACE AND TIME and LOST WORLDS in the Neville Spearman reprint editions. This does make a big difference.

Scott

My first exposure was akin to Mr Joshi's, and my reaction is similar to some fiction: I rate most of less interest to me than the poetry. I take some exceptions, mainly the Zothique material, but then I'm more inclined towards that than other fiction.

*Author of Strange Gardens [www.lulu.com]


*Editor of Calenture: a Journal of Studies in Speculative Verse [calenture.fcpages.com]

*Visit my homepage: [voleboy.freewebpages.org]

Scott:

I was just being facetious regarding the "graciousness" comment, although I assume you were also, at least somewhat, in your reply.

I understand and recall well the sequence in which Joshi read the tales, but I would assume that he's since had ample time to assimilate the better material, and thus I see little excuse or reason for his views, today. Elevating Naughton above CAS seems rather insulting to the latter, in my view. Of course, de gustibus, and all that; for instance, Joshi's obsequious admiration for the, in my opinion, hugely over-rated Ramsey Campbell, and his overly critical view of the vastly more original and interesting Robert Aickman, have always puzzled me.

Joshi has always viewed the prose poems quite highly, I realize, but they, with a few exceptions, are more closely related to the verse than to the tales.


voleboy:

My opinion of the tales is perhaps higher than yours, but I have also always believed that CAS's greatest genius lies in his verse.

With Joshi and CAS it's all a matter of perspective: he likes and admires stories like "City of the Singing Flame," "Vaults of Yoh-Vombis," and the Zothique series, but still can't get the bad taste of "Murder in the 4th Dimension" out of his mouth. By contrast, he has no problem keeping minor tales by Lovecraft in comparison, because his initial exposure to Grandpa came through "At the Mountains of Madness," which he admires greatly. I jokingly refer to this as the "Mother Hen" syndrome, since like a newly hatched baby chick bonding with the first thing we see, we are "imprinted" by the first story we come across by a new writer. As a result, when assessing CAS' achievement as a story writer, his high estimate of those stories tends to be counterbalanced by the lesser stories he read first. What can you do? Nobody's perfect.
I tend to agree with Joshi's estimation of Ramsey Campbell, and of THomas Ligotti as well. As far as Aickman is concerned, I thought that his chapter on Aickman in "The Modern Weird Tale" was fair, since I have some difficulty with Aickman as well. However, he is due for a rereading, since my opinion of writers similar to him, ie Walter de la Mare and L. P. Hartley, is quite high. But as you say, de gustibus non disputandum est (family motto of Hannibal Lecter).

Scott

Scott:

Quote:

still can't get the bad taste of "Murder in the 4th Dimension" out of his mouth. By contrast, he has no problem keeping minor tales by Lovecraft in comparison, because his initial exposure to Grandpa came through "At the Mountains of Madness," which he admires greatly.

I cracked up at the first part of your remark; I'd forgotten how bad that story is, as well! To be more serious, I think that there's something to what you say, but I would figure that time and the opportunity to read the whole of CAS's corpus of tales might've sufficed to wash out that bad taste.

I recall only Joshi's Studies in Weird Fiction articles on Ligotti and Aickman, so perhaps he's revised his views since then. Joshi's discussion of Ligotti was critical but quite favorable, overall, and his treatment of Aickman was largely negative. Campbell, for reasons that remain inexplicable to me, he largely speaks of in the hushed, awed tones of one who stands in the presence of a deity. Campbell and Ligotti are two writers that I very much want to like, but I have great difficulty doing so. With Ligotti, there is a kind of cold, modernistic preciosity and wilful obscurity that keep me at arm's length. I also have no sympathy whatsoever with his nihilistic, self-defeatist world-view. Campbell's work simply never has interested me. He seems like such a nice fellow, though, that I feel somewhat bad about this! Lol. So, at any rate, I suppose that it galls me a little to see--from my perspective--Joshi undervalue the work of CAS, and Aickman, for that matter, and over-praise such authors as McNaughton, Ligotti, and Campbell.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 25 Aug 05 | 10:31AM by Kyberean.

I agree with Scott and Joshi on Campbell and Ligotti. Aickman seems to be one of those authors, like Arthur Machen, about whom Joshi was capable of offering genuine insights while largely missing the point.

Jim

Quote:

I agree with Scott and Joshi on Campbell and Ligotti.

I realize that I am in the minority regarding these two, but am confident that history will vindicate me. ;-)



P.S. I also hope that Joshi has finally realized what a one-note bust T.E.D. Klein turned out to be. As I recall from my copies of *Studies in Weird Fiction* from the early-mid '90's, he seemd to rank Klein with the modern masters, of sorts.

Heh-heh, I agree with Joshi on Klein too. Except for "Ladder", his post-DARK GODS work is fairly disappointing, but I think "Events at Poroth Farm", DARK GODS, and all but the end of THE CEREMONIES are first rate.

Jim

Apropos of Klein, perhaps I'm being a bit harsh, but I think that it was all downhill after "Poroth Farm", which is a masterpiece of the first water. The Ceremonies has its moments, but, to me, is seriously flawed, and very much inferior to the original story. Joshi's analysis of the book is, overall, quite good.

Dark Gods has its moments, as well, I concede, but Klein's overall body of work has been far too insubstantial and uneven, I feel, to justify his being rated with the masters. My sense is that, like Donald Wandrei's, Klein's is a case of great potential lying largely fallow, which is a shame. Perhaps he'll finally publish that novel that 's been on the cusp of appearing for the last ten or fifteen years, though, and prove me wrong. I'd be delighted if that were the case.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 25 Oct 05 | 08:16AM by Kyberean.

S. T. likes to say "provocative" things, knowing they will upset people -- or so, at times, it seems. I've never understood his lack of admiration for Smith, whom he finds entirely over-rated. I loved Brian's stories. He sent me a bunch of them in MS when Jon Cooke was first planning a collection of Brian's work, for which I was slated to write an introduction. That project never came about -- which was a good thing, because Brian's collection was finally published as a handsome hardcover from Terminal Fright and won the World Fantasy award. I miss good ol' Brian.

Re this interesting thread: an observation from my perspective such as it may be worth - I do not consider myself an afficionado of the whole field of Weird fiction, though I have dipped my toe in the pond where the previously named writers other than Clark Ashton have floated. Secondly, I don't give a tinker's damn for Joshi's opinions, nor am I aware that he or anyone else has been ordained The Sublime Critic for this genre of literature - but this I know - I have read nearly
100,000 books, fiction and non-fiction, some three thousand of which I own or have donated to College Libraries which are the core of that reading - and the tales of Clark Ashton Smith have endured intact in my memory as no other, and have called me back to re-read more often than any other for the sake of pleasure alone; almost as though a haunting. Even where an ending may have seemed at first weak or there was some ineffable flaw, yet the essence of it seems stuck in some synapse that won't let it go into memory's oblivion as so much else has. While I remember the central factors in say, Kazantzakis' "Odyssey", and I recall as a masterpiece which deserves re-visiting - Smith's tales have called me back again and again, not as an exercise in intellectual indulgence, but because they seem to always dwell just out of reach near the surface of conscious thought. I don't know whether others can relate to a similar experience with him or not; but neither Lovecraft, Howard, or even Poe have had that kind of hold on my thought.
Only a handful of writers have achieved that for me. And that, for me, is the ultimate critical assessment - not, "do I want to read it again" but, "I must read it again" - I find it very curious, yet undeniable.

"and the tales of Clark Ashton Smith have endured intact in my memory as no other, and have called me back to re-read more often than any other for the sake of pleasure alone; almost as though a haunting."

Well put. That is the sole standard I use when deciding what (and where) books to keep in my collection. If I know that I must read it again at some point, it's on the main bookshelf (actually technically a "cupboard" from the late 19th century, with a brass curtain rod, but no one notices the difference). The rest goes in boxes, if not out the door. Smith is one of about 30 authors on that board, and will remain there. Why waste time with objects one won't use again?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 28 Jan 09 | 10:01PM by Radovarl.

S.T. Joshi seems to be broadening his horizons, these days. His latest work, for which he serves as editor, is a book entitled In Her Place: A Documentary History of Prejudice against Women.

Joshi deserves immense credit for his work on behalf of H. P. Lovecraft. Without Joshi, the only biography of Lovecraft we would have is L. Sprague de Camp's debacle. Joshi also at least makes clear (most of the time) the difference between facts and his own evaluative opinions.

Joshi's weaknesses are that he can be overly strident in the assertion of his opinions, and, perhaps because of his status as "independent scholar", and the concomitant lack of institutional support, research assistants, and the like, he can be sloppy, on occasion. Witness, for instance, his erroneous assertion in the Annotated Supernatural Horror in Literature that most of Gustav Meyrinck's fiction was, at the time of writing, unavailable in English translation.

In the balance, the verdict on Joshi has to be favorable, I think, although I find him to be annoying at times, too.