Don Herron and Leo Grin passed this along to me. Sort of a mixed blessing IMO:

The Siren's Call: Clark Ashton Smith's ancient worlds

Actually I was surprised at how favorable this review was. The reviewer did have some critical comments about CAS but the main tone was positive.

-----Walker Martin

I'm the one guilty of alerting Leo, though I couldn't say whether he told Don or not. As you say Scott, a mixed blessing. Here's my review of the review:

[www.thecimmerian.com]

Owchar did a piece on Solomon Kane a while back that was pretty well done. I blogged about that also. I think his heart is in the right place, but he got too many facts wrong and drew too many wacky conclusions in this one for me to let it slide.

As a sort of compromise, since I really DO like a lot of the things Owchar writes, I put all my gripes in the last two-thirds of the post and split it before I tore into his review.

BTW, if y'all see any facts that yours truly got wrong, please let me know. :)

Hi all,

I emailed the following to Nick Owchar after reading his review and the Cimmerian post:

Hi Nick,

I'm pleased you and the L.A. Times are taking note of the brilliant Clark Ashton Smith, but I'm hoping you'll check out this link for a clear enumeration of some of the things you got wrong in an otherwise welcome review:

[www.thecimmerian.com]

"Reckless" and "messy" are particularly regrettable epithets for Smith, whose painstaking attention to the color and rhythm of words is well known (and clear from the stories). Smith himself addressed a New York Times review in the 1940s for taking him to task about his style. Here's an excerpt:

Marjorie Farber said of Smith's prose style (in a 1944 New York Times review of Lost Worlds): "Another feature of this style is its use of two words in place of one: 'consider or conjecture,' 'speed and celerity of motion.' Why Mr. Smith failed to say a 'mouth of amazing and astounding capacity' I don't know; perhaps he was in a hurry.”

Smith's response to this was:

“I too was rather amused by the N. Y. Times review; especially by the complacency with which the lady displays her ignorance of the finer shades of meaning in English words. One might well 'consider' without conjecturing at all; and vice versa. Even her attempt at sarcasm falls down, since 'amazing' is far from synonymous with 'astounding,' the first meaning to perplex or confuse with fear, terror, wonder, etc., and the latter to overwhelm or stun with awe, etc. But of course such nuances are lost on the average reader.”

Mr. Owchar wrote back:

Thanks Gary,

Your comments are much much appreciated. I hope I didn’t come off like the snarky Ms Farber! Thanks also for the link to the Cimmerian.

Nick

One thing I regret is that I couldn't find my copy of the full letter in which Smith expanded on his use of words and Farber's misreading. It wasn't in the Selected Letters or Freedom of Fantastic Things but is in one of those CAS Studies-type zines from a while back. Anyway, I think Owchar's heart is in the right place.

Gary

Just got another email from Nick Owchar:

Thanks again – I also posted a “For the Record” at the bottom of the piece citing Deuce’s great response. The intro by Wolfe in the book I reviewed gives an entirely different (wrong) picture of CAS. Ugh. Keep in touch.

Nick

This is encouraging. Some reviewers get in high dudgeon in such situations. I'm thinking at the moment of food writer Eric Asimov, who reviewed a Thai restaurant in Portland, Oregon (where I live) for the New York Times. Turns out the place was owned by some very good friends of his, and the praise seemed suspicious. When he was busted for this ethical no-no (and he was clearly in violation of the Times' own policies in regard to such things), he was defensive and dismissive and refused to cop to it. So it goes.

Gary

Thank You very much,

For this post and the other info in the thread.
I appreciate the sharing and enjoyed the reads.

Cathexis

garymorris Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just got another email from Nick Owchar:
>
> Thanks again – I also posted a “For the
> Record” at the bottom of the piece citing
> Deuce’s great response. The intro by Wolfe in
> the book I reviewed gives an entirely different
> (wrong) picture of CAS. Ugh. Keep in touch.
>
> Nick
>
> This is encouraging. Some reviewers get in high
> dudgeon in such situations. I'm thinking at the
> moment of food writer Eric Asimov, who reviewed a
> Thai restaurant in Portland, Oregon (where I live)
> for the New York Times. Turns out the place was
> owned by some very good friends of his, and the
> praise seemed suspicious. When he was busted for
> this ethical no-no (and he was clearly in
> violation of the Times' own policies in regard to
> such things), he was defensive and dismissive and
> refused to cop to it. So it goes.
>
> Gary

Hey Gary! Thanks for getting proactive on that. I should've emailed Mr. Owchar but didn't get around to it. Thanks (I assume) to your email, he contacted me. Once again, as with you, Owchar was very forthright and very willing (IMO) to get the facts straight.

BTW, I'm adding ED to TC's "Friends of The Cimmerian" link list. Also, several of us bloggers will be doing posts on 1-13-10 to commemorate CAS' nativity.

Best,
Deuce Richardson

I think it is quite a fairly written review, although more than a little plodding in places. Not gushing by any means, but fair enough from someone who is obviously no Smith scholar (and I don't really see why a reviewer should have to be an expert). Sure some of the bio details seems a little off, but it's not the worst I've read either. I also think it is greatly encouraging that they have linked Gary's amendments.

I also winced as I read the review (having received the link from Don Herron at the same time as Scott) and was very happy to see the matter addressed by Deuce in such a polite yet firm manner. I agree that Mr. Owchar seems to have meant well, and that it's encouraging he was so willing to stand corrected. The only amendment I would make to Deuce's response is that The Smiths built and moved to the cabin on Boulder Ridge in 1902,(as per Don Fryer's bio-bibliography, EMPEROR OF DREAMS) making Smith about nine years old at the time rather than fourteen. The move from the Gaylord house where Smith was born was only a matter of a few miles.

It is interesting that so much speculation surrounds the falling off of Smith's fictional output after 1937. Deuce is absolutely correct that the death of Smith's parents (his mother in '35 and father in '37) contributed to his withdrawal from the pulp scene just as much as that of Howard and Lovecraft. Also, his frustration with the editorial meddling, rejections, and non-payment for completed stories led him to confide to Derleth in 1941 that it had become neccesary for him to do more living than writing during this period. (1938-41) Indeed, Smith completed virtually no fiction during the 1940's, with the exception of "The Master of the Crabs" in 1947, and "Double Cosmos" around 40-41. (This minor story reads like a first draft rather than the highly polished prose characteristic of most CAS tales) Everything considered, I feel it likely Smith suffered from moderate to severe depression during this period. He did, however, begin carving his famous sculptures about this time, and continued to write much excellent poetry.

I know most of you are aware of all this, I just wanted to point out that it was a culmination of many factors that led to his sudden withdrawal from fiction; Don Fryer has also speculated that severe eye-strain was another contributing factor. But as pointed out in the previous post, it's rather unrealistic to expect a reviewer to be an expert on every author he reviews! It's also unfortunate that Mr. Owchar's entire knowledge of CAS seems to come only from the new Prime book and the Bison editions; surely there are other editions of CAS available that might give a more favorable first impression . . .

-Ron

Hey Ron - good post - to all concerned, might someone send the reviewer a link to this site? It would seem to me to be a "best" source of information on Clark -
Re the "eyesight" question - doubtful to me - Clark's eyesight was excellent as far as I could tell. He did a good deal of detailed work, and had no trouble reading small print in some of the editions we shared. Of course, a steady diet of married life might have improved his vision!?

Thanks, Doc . . . When I discussed this with Don I understood the eye-strain was something Smith was experiencing at that time, and that it was the long typing sessions that bothered him. Apparently this was one of the reasons why he used tear sheets from the pulps to prepare the texts for (at least) his first three Arkham House collections. I'm sure you are right about his eyesight in general; I've never heard of him needing glasses, nor can I recall any pictures of him wearing them.

As for marriage improving his vision, I don't know how that might work . . . perhaps there was a pair of rose-colored glasses involved?

-Ron

Marriage improves your vision ? Absolutely.
Once you've been married a while everything else
around you starts looking a whole lot better all
of a sudden. Not only that, but the longer you're
married, the better **anything** else looks.

Cathexis

Clark's favorite lines from Dylan Thomas' "Lament" -

"...Whenever I dove in a breast-high shoal, wherever I ramped in the clover quilts, whatsoever I did in the coal-black night, I left my quivering prints."...

Stimulating the circulation is always good for the whole body, mind, and spirit.

I can tell you this -- his memory never flagged..

As for his good eyesight... perhaps he had a steady diet of carrots?

no, burgundy, black bread, and sharp cheese -
plus fresh air and steady exercise - long walks etc.