Does anyone have a phone number or email address for Les Daniels (author/editor)?

It would be a big help if anyone could share his contact info with me, I'm looking to get permission to reproduce art from one of his books for book on Lee Brown Coye.

Thanks!

Les Daniels is on Yuku:

[lesdaniels.u.yuku.com]

If you have a Yuku account, you can contact him there.

I'm amazed there's the possibility of a second book on the great Lee Brown Coye, after Luis Ortiz's excellent 2005 book Arts Unknown: The Life and Art of Lee Brown Coye. What an amazing time we live in! CAS's complete works in textually correct editions, new HPL volumes appearing all over, Jack Vance in Afton House's magnificent series - and that just scratches the surface. Much as I sometimes fantasize about living in the '30s when CAS and the gang were alive and at their peak of creativity (imagine going to the drugstore to buy a new issue of Weird Tales!), I have to say this era has its compensations.

And speaking of Coye, I wish somebody would do a book on Ronald Clyne, a brilliant artist who helped make so many of the Arkham House books (and Folkways recordings) memorable.

1. It's all a matter of taste, I realize, but I fail to grasp the excitement over works devoted to these mediocre-to-poor Arkham House artists, such as Coye, or the often embarrassing Utpatel.

2. The Night Shade editions of Clark Ashton Smith are not "textually correct"; they are riddled with typographical errors, especially volumes three and four.

3. Also, the "great" era we live in often allows only those who can afford to pay forty to fifty dollars per volume to enjoy many of the reissues you speak of.


"Ich bin der Geist, der stets verneint." ;-)

Well... of course it's a matter of taste whether an artist like Coye has value. For some of us, his powerful primitivism is wonderful indeed. Since opinions on art (like just about everything else) are subjective, there's no sense in pursuing a discussion of this, though obviously I'm not alone in my enthusiasm given Coye's reputation and the interest in his work.

The Night Shade CAS volumes are as good as you'll get for Smith, and far better than they might have been (or for that matter have been in their innumerable previous books and magazine appearances). This is a matter of celebration for me, not scorn.

Re: the pricey volumes, there are other ways to look at that aspect. Amazon usually offers good discounts (I've paid about $25 for each of the Night Shade CAS books with free shipping). And some of the pubs, like Hippocampus, have many unusual and reasonably priced titles (like the Barlow and Loveman books). And it's a matter of personal priority. I am and always have been a working-class guy (former typesetter, now full-time editor and writer) and have never made a fortune (I don't own a house, for example), but I'm willing to forgo certain other things in order to afford the CAS series, the Jack Vance series etc.

Absquatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1. It's all a matter of taste, I realize, but I
> fail to grasp the excitement over works devoted to
> these mediocre-to-poor Arkham House artists, such
> as Coye, or the often embarrassing Utpatel.
>
> 2. The Night Shade editions of Clark Ashton Smith
> are not "textually correct"; they are riddled with
> typographical errors, especially volumes three and
> four.
>
> 3. Also, the "great" era we live in often allows
> only those who can afford to pay forty to fifty
> dollars per volume to enjoy many of the reissues
> you speak of.
>
>
> "Ich bin der Geist, der stets verneint." ;-)


There are times when one cannot resist being one of "those": he who indulges in pointless, bitter message board machismo - and there are times when one realizes that some see the glass half full, some see the glass half empty, and still others: those who stare at it endlessly until they're convinced the glass is filled to the brim with vomit!

Absquatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> 3. Also, the "great" era we live in often allows
> only those who can afford to pay forty to fifty
> dollars per volume to enjoy many of the reissues
> you speak of.
>
>

70 years ago you probably would have been one of the people (cf. Lin Carter, Lovecraft: A look Behind the Cthulhu Mythos, p. 142) screaming bloody murder at having to pay $5 for The Outsider and Others. ;)

1. garymorris:

A. Quite right, all this is subjective, which is why my opinion should count no more or less than anyone else's, correct? Still, the ad populum fallacy is not too convincing.

B.

Quote:

The Night Shade CAS volumes are as good as you'll get for Smith, and far better than they might have been (or for that matter have been in their innumerable previous books and magazine appearances). This is a matter of celebration for me, not scorn.

For me, celebration and scorn in this matter are not an "either-or" question. Also, it's not at all clear that the Night Shade volumes represent a textual improvement upon all previous editions of CAS, as your remark suggests.

C. There are always alternative ways to look at any matter. In any case, Hippocampus is not the best example for your argument, as much of their "reasonably priced" books are shoddy print-on-demand material. Whether one is willing to give up a few dinners to afford a deluxe, limited edition is, in any case, completely irrelevant to the question of whether such editions should exist, in the first place.


2. mikehunchback:

Quote:

There are times when one cannot resist being one of "those": he who indulges in pointless, bitter message board machismo

Mike ought to know, I guess! Pot, meet kettle.



3. Martinus:

Quote:

70 years ago you probably would have been one of the people [...] screaming bloody murder at having to pay $5 for The Outsider and Others. ;)

Yes, most likely, I would, since (allowing for inflation), five dollars seventy years ago is the equivalent of $77.86, today. So, I guess I should be grateful in 2010 for forty or fifty dollar volumes? ;-)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 15 Sep 10 | 05:55PM by Absquatch.

Jojo Lapin X Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Les Daniels is on Yuku

Jojo, thanks SO much for that. I'm in contact with Les Daniels now, and hopefully on my way to getting the illios from "Dying of Fright" in a deluxe, limited HC book of LBC's 70's art. I owe you!


Absquatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> 2. mikehunchback:
>
> There are times when one cannot resist being one
> of "those": he who indulges in pointless, bitter
> message board machismo
>
> Mike ought to know, I guess! Pot, meet kettle.

Sigh, I knew that would somehow be lost on you. I choose not to debate the validity of one of the Weird Fiction's best loved, most prolific artists - it would simply be pointless. What followed the part of my post that you quoted was my point:

"and there are times when one realizes that some see the glass half full, some see the glass half empty, and still others: those who stare at it endlessly until they're convinced the glass is filled to the brim with vomit!"

To help explain myself, I'd like to also quote Harlan Ellison: "You are only entitled to your informed opinion". Harsh? Not really. Why invest one's emotional energy in trying to change someone's mind if he's only being contrary?

> 1. It's all a matter of taste, I realize, but I
> fail to grasp the excitement over works devoted to
> these mediocre-to-poor Arkham House artists, such
> as Coye, or the often embarrassing Utpatel.

If it indeed is a matter of taste, which you realized, why bother trashing both of these artists? Do you actually not realize the answer to what you fail to grasp is the very first sentence of your post? And seriously - there are NO ARTISTS more offensive to you visually? You've run them all through your head and Coye and Utpatel are the ones deserving criticism? On a Clark Ashton Smith message board??? I'm lost on all of that, or at least the self-righteous stance that tries to back it up.

I'm just surprised that someone could be SO pessimistic, how can that really be what you think? It's too contrived and too negative to be a REAL admission of things well-thought out.

I'll gladly send you one of these books free when it comes out Absquatch. Hopefully you'll look at it with an open mind and see why so many of us that love CAS, HPL, etc. also enjoy Coye's beautiful, macabre art.

I just wanted to say that I agree with Absquatch on all counts. As to the "textually correct" thing, I believe the Arkham House collections of CAS stories, or at least some of them, aver that CAS was personally involved in editing them. Assuming this is true, wouldn't the Arkham books represent the "textually correct" editions, in so far as they had the author's personal imprimatur?

John P. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just wanted to say that I agree with Absquatch
> on all counts. As to the "textually correct"
> thing, I believe the Arkham House collections of
> CAS stories, or at least some of them, aver that
> CAS was personally involved in editing them.
> Assuming this is true, wouldn't the Arkham books
> represent the "textually correct" editions, in so
> far as they had the author's personal imprimatur?

No. It was always Smith's intention to restore passages that Weird Tales forced him to cut, but when Arkham House published his collections he suffered from so severe problems with his eyes that he had to supply them with tearsheets from the magazine instead, thus perpetuating the errors.

Does any CAS correspondence exist to establish to what extent he planned to "restore" his stories? The introduction to Necronomicon Books' TALES OF ZOTHIQUE states that there are only a couple of Zothique stories with significant differences between the original and published versions. And I recall that a note at the beginning of A RENDEZVOUS IN AVEROIGNE implies that CAS used tear sheets only for "The City of the Singing Flame." Information such as this causes me to suspect that claims such as yours might be based upon unreliable hearsay.

Furthermore, I don't understand why "problems with his eyes" would have required Smith to use tear sheets. I note that OUT OF SPACE AND TIME was published in 1942, and three more collections were published during the 1940s. Although Smith produced little new fiction during the 40s, he nevertheless produced--despite whatever eye problems he might have had. Finally, this was a man who preferred to live by lantern and candle light.

In short, I suspect that the recent "definitive" CAS publications may, in significant part, amount to a frivolous, conjectural, and not-too-convincing attempt to read the mind of a man nearly 50 years dead.

I feel compelled to add the following, as I know that personal feelings can occasionally affect perception. As a young man, I painstakingly collected all the CAS stories I could find in paperback editions. When I got a little older, I upgraded to hardcover, occasionally paying collector's prices. I will confess that the later appearance of purportedly "correct" editions caused me some frustration.

I would add to John P.'s remarks that the Necronomicon Press editions of CAS's tales of Hyperborea and Zothique do not appear to suffer, proportionately, from the same number of errors as the Night Shade editions.

As to "as good as it gets" - I fail to see why so many folks can't seem to do re-prints without making lots of mistakes - be assured, the original volumes, most of which I have, and to which he was pleased to sign his name specifically for me, were pretty damned good - I speak mainly of the poetry, though perhaps you refer more to the tales - whatever the case may be - the tales as originally printed fall into the rarest of categories in my library -- books that I feel compelled to read again and again well over more than 50 years since I new him -
I will die most likely within the next 10 years, start saving.

It appears that Les Daniels has passed away.