Lin Carter
Robert Price
Robert Bloch
Fritz Leiber
Lord Dusany (sp?)
Algernon Blackwood

Where can I find their works?
And can I get thoughts on their work?
I wanna know which ones are the "better" of the rights as to rank them on my prioroties list of stories to find.

-Jake-

I admire both Leiber and Dunsany. To find their work I would try (other than ebay): abebooks, Powell's and paperbackswap (all with a .com at the end). Dunsany works can be found at Project Gutenburg as well.

Lin Carter - I don't think I've much anything by Carter, though I've read countless story collections and other things that he edited. As I understand it, his pastiches of Lovecraft, Howard, CAS, etc. are mediocre. If you really want to try him out, though, start with The Book of Eibon from Chaosium, since it is Klarkash-tonian.

Robert Price - Another editor, unless I'm thinking of the wrong Price.

Robert Bloch - Never read anything by him, though of course Psycho is supposed to be a classic of its type.

Fritz Leiber - Call me a philistine, but I prefer Leiber's "Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser" saga over much of his other work. These can be had in any number of editions, most OOP, but Dark Horse is putting out new trade paperbacks of the seven usual titles (in order, Swords and Deviltry, Swords Against Death, Swords in the Mist, the Swords of Lankhmar, Swords Against Wizardry, Swords Against Ice Magic, and The Knight and Knave of Swords); his short horror fiction is also quite good, especially things like "Smoke Ghost" and "Horrible Imaginings". These are fairly difficult to find in print, and difficult to find at all for less than an arm and a leg. I would recommend the collection The Leiber Chronicles--nice selection of stories from throughout his career, smaller price tag than some other recent offerings. I find that his science fiction hasn't aged well, but it's not bad either.

Lord Dusany (sp?) - I agree with Michael Moorcock on Dunsany, he is "Slight but inoffensive". His stuff is nicely written, very strange, but ultimately not all that interesting.

Algernon Blackwood - wouldn't know, though HPL considered "The Willows" the greatest weird tale ever written.

There's a good Penguin selection of Dunsany, In the Land of Time and Other Fantasy Tales, which contains the full text of his first story collection plus a wide-ranging selection of his other stuff, from his cyncical humour stories to his whodunnits. And then there's the British (published by Gollancz) omnibus volume Time and the Gods (don't confuse it with the Dunsany collection of the same name), which contains six of his best story collections although with some weird mistakes (for example, his FIRST book is placed LAST in the omnibus volume). It's magnificent stuff; it's no wonder Lovecraft and Barlow (among many others) were so taken with it.

Robert Bloch -- far and away my favorite of these authors. It is a true shame how this wonderful writer has fallen into obscurity, but there are still some very good anthologies of his works which I suggest that you check out. "Flowers From the Moon and Other Lunacies," an Arkham House book with an introduction by Robert M. Price is one of the best anthologies that comes to mind. Definitely, definitely do not pass up Bloch's fiction; his humor, his twist endings, and the versatility of his plots are all elements of his brilliant fiction.

Thank you people.

I would also recommend Robert Bloch's late novel Lori, particularly if you're a Lovecraft fan. And Fritz Leiber's novel Our Lady of Darkness is a must for CAS devotees.

Radovarl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Lord Dusany (sp?) - I agree with Michael Moorcock
> on Dunsany, he is "Slight but inoffensive". His
> stuff is nicely written, very strange, but
> ultimately not all that interesting.

You know, I had to bide my time on this one until I found the reference, which is an introduction to Fritz Leiber's Ill Met In Lankhmar reproduced by White Wolf. Actually, Moorcock praises Lord Dunsany ("our coveted Dunsany and [William] Morris") and says that CAS didn't hold a candle to Leiber as far as writing goes. On the Dunsany wiki it is written: Michael Moorcock often cites Dunsany as a strong influence. I think you might be referring to Moorcock on Tolkien, who he is certainly not a fan of.

CAS didn't hold a candle to Leiber? As much as I like Fritz Leiber's writing, that's ridiculous! But then, I've never read MIchael Moorcock, so maybe he has some stylistic preference...

I don't agree with Moorcock's opinion on either CAS or Tolkien, the latter he calls the leader of an unhealthy cult in regards to the Lord of the Rings first starting to take off. I enjoy Leiber's writing a lot, to the point I can forgive him for acting in the 1970 movie Equinox. However I believe that Clark Ashton Smith was much more innovative and imaginative than Leiber and could paint a vivid picture with his prose. Actually, if there is a fantasy writer whose work I bog down on and set aside, it is Moorcock.

...and I won't agree on that with you; I remember that in my youth when I was 14 or 15 I was an avid reader of the Elric of Melniboné stories or take the Jerry Cornelius cycle that was just great, although his works haven't been that good for the past two decades; in contrast to that I have disliked 'The Lord of the Rings' (never made more than a few pages in LotR or take 'The Silmarillion (what a waste of paper)) from the beginning and agree with Moorcock on him, it's all a matter of taste

It is a matter of taste, I agree. I have read the original Elric stories and I like them well enough and won't argue that they are well written, they are. The more recent Elric novels are not, in my opinion, up to par with the original books, I would have rather seen another Eternal Champion, but that is just me. I enjoy Tolkien, even the Silmarillion, but all of the "history behind the history" works after that seem to be overkill. What am I reading right now? Well this rainy night I will be reading the Ballantine edition of Zothique again.

Yes, blaming Tolkien for the 'unhealthy' cult of LOTR is a bit unfair--it makes him sound like L. Ron Hubbard.

In comparing writers, let's not forget that CAS had essentially finished the bulk of his fiction before Leiber started his professional career. Leiber is a very different type of writer than CAS--he seems to be much more engaged with this world and the people inhabiting it, whereas CAS prefers the wholly alien and outre. This is a gross oversimplification, to be sure, but still...how many memorable characters can you recall from his stories?

just my last 5 cents concerning Tolkien; his intention for the LotR cycle was to create a new myth for England (taken into account his academical work on the 'Beowulf' legend) and when I saw this striking similarity between Mordor/Germany (he was in the trenches and a devout catholic), and also his simple black/white cosmos I didn't want to waste my time on reading it

Moorcock (or maybe his collaborator) had very nice things to say about ZOTHIQUE in FANTASY: 100 BEST BOOKS. When I met Moorcock at WFC two years ago in Austin he told me that he greatly admired Smith for his use of language and imagination. Moorcock has a tendency to be overly critical even about writers he likes,
Fritz was pretty darn good IMO. He and Bradbury were definitely the stars of the post-HPL post-Wright WEIRD TALES, although that's like saying you're the tallest midget (with apologies to all the Little People reading this!)

Scott

As they say,Scott, better to be attacked than ignored.

A quickie response: I would recommend Fritz's
(he was a friend of mine, so I take the liberty
to call him by his first name :) ) World Fantasy Award
winning novel "Our Lady Of Darkness." I mention this
work to you, partly, because the plot, somewhat,
involves Clark Ashton Smith by actual name and others,
friends of his, thinly veiled in their characters'
names, i.e. Donald Sidney-Fryer.

The novel is still fairly cheaply available. Enjoy!

I couldn't log in the the Forum until today, so this is a belated reply.

Tobias wrote:

> just my last 5 cents concerning Tolkien; his intention for the LotR cycle was to create a new myth for England

No. When he started writing in 1916 his "Book of Lost Tales" that was his intention--it had long receded from his mind and can't really be applied to The Lord of the Rings. (The Book of Lost Tales evolved in the 1920s and 30s into The Silmarillion, and most of the connections with Anglo-Saxon England were eventually dropped).

> and when I saw this striking similarity between Mordor/Germany

This is all in the eye of the beholder--what Tolkien called "applicability". He intended no such connections.

> and also his simple black/white cosmos

This is a superficial reading--in the details Tolkien was a very subtle. I'd suggest anyone have a look at either of Tom Shippey's books (THe Road to Middle-earth, or Tolkien: Author of the Century) to get a better grasp at what he was up to.

> I didn't want to waste my time on reading it

That's your choice, but it really isn't fair to make such an uninformed blanket dismissal of him as a writer.

Doug

I believe that Moorcock, while a decent enough writer, is a little cracked: he talks Dunsany up, he talks him down, he talks Leiber up, then down.

I can't remember ever seeing Moorcock talking either Dunsany or Leiber down. He usually mentions Dunsany as an important influence on his own writing.

Moorcock ("Wizardry and Wild Romance"); "Dunsany I find slight but inoffensive". In a different section he parodies Dunsany's prose, likening it to the soporific rhythm of a steam train, concluding "The sort of prose most often identified with 'high' fantasy is the prose of the nursery-room. It is a lullaby; it is meant to soothe and console..."

In the same volume he's very complimentary about Smith "an almost playful relish for the exotic, a carelessness of spirit ... Smith's stories lack the neurotic drone of writers like Lovecraft, and contain a great deal of ordinary humour... Smith was able to combine rapid action with his descriptions... his landscapes contributing to his story's dynamic."

MM's consistently down on Tolkien and Lovecraft for reasons which are, I believe, at least partly political. His views on other writers (particularly R.E. Howard) do tend to oscillate wildly, so it wouldn't surprise me if he has contradicted himself on Dunsany. I don't personally see it as a sign of being "cracked"; in life things move on and perspectives change. Moorcock's mind just doesn't stay still - you can see that in his own fiction.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10 Mar 08 | 07:28AM by Mikey_C.

O_O! I must have missed that -- or repressed it. On the other hand, he also writes that Dunsany's "prose and his invention is often witty, paradoxical".
And Leiber is referred to as "one of America's leading fantasts".

Moorcock has said that he intends to stop writing; I hope that he changes his mind. His fiction is always supremely readable, even whe he's at his worst (on the other hand, I haven't read everything, so I may not have seen his worst yet!).

Ken K. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, blaming Tolkien for the 'unhealthy' cult of
> LOTR is a bit unfair--it makes him sound like L.
> Ron Hubbard.
>
> In comparing writers, let's not forget that CAS
> had essentially finished the bulk of his fiction
> before Leiber started his professional career.
> Leiber is a very different type of writer than
> CAS--he seems to be much more engaged with this
> world and the people inhabiting it, whereas CAS
> prefers the wholly alien and outre. This is a
> gross oversimplification, to be sure, but
> still...how many memorable characters can you
> recall from his stories?

There is the rascal Satampra Zeiros, the deliciously vile Namirrha, the innocent victim Xeethra, Morghi the priest who hunts Eibon and Nushain the astrologer. Overall, not very many and certainly nothing like Leiber's adventuring duo, but Smith does have a few memorable characters.

Point taken, Shadowcat.

I should also have pointed out in my post that I don't think Smith is a lesser writer because he is less interested in delineating characters in detail. I think this was an conscious artistic choice which he made to evoke a certain response in the reader. He was often trying for a sense of ironic distance in his stories, and too much emphasis on emotion and psychology would have interfered with the desired effect.

And I agree 110% with you. Smith took a totally different approach to telling a story and I enjoy both writers but I believe Smith was the better artisan. The vocabulary and imagination are hard to top.