Re: In Memoriam: Clark Ashton Smith
Posted by:
jdworth (IP Logged)
Date: 20 October, 2011 03:07PM
I'm going to come down on the side of those who argue against the usual extreme version of Sprague and his work. Yes, his biography of HPL has many, many flaws; it was also not only the first full-length biography of the man, but took him seriously and, despite the author's shortcomings in understanding where Lovecraft was coming from -- something de Camp confessed at the very beginning of the work, openly stating that this would often prevent him from being as sympathetic as many might wish -- he nonetheless painted him as a fascinating and complex individual who was, when all was said, a very talented, generous, warm human being.
It might pay to remember that, in his final summation, one of the things he had to say (and in fact B&N picked this as a blurb for the dust jacket of their reprint of the biography) is, I think, one of the best short comments on Lovecraft as a person that I have ever seen: "Despite his oddities, those who knew him loved him and were fascinated by him. He always tried to do the right thing. He kept learning and improving all his life; and that, it seems to me, is the best use to which a mind can be put" (p. 448).
I've not read his book on Howard at this point, though I have it set aside to read early next year, but I do understand it suffers from many of the same flaws. With a popular biography such as these are, I tend to take that into account anyway, so am perhaps more forgiving than some. (I prefer more scholarly biographies, but I have also learned things from the popular ones as well.)
On de Camp's work itself... it, too, was uneven. He sometimes cannibalized himself to a ridiculous degree; but when he was good, he could be very, very good. And as a person, despite his flaws, he was also a kind and generous man; this I gather from other accounts, as well as having met the man and talked to him for some time. I disagree with him strongly on various issues, but overall I would have to say that he was someone deserving courtesy and respect.
To return to his writings on CAS, HPL, REH, etc.; though he certainly argues with their views when he disagrees with them, the bulk of his comments tend to be quite favorable, even laudatory; and he championed their work for decades in venue after venue, unlike various other sff writers of the time. (There were, of course, others who did so, including Ray Bradbury and Harlan Ellison.) So I would hardly call most of his comments, at any rate, "semi-insulting". Wrong-headed at times, perhaps. But insulting, on any level... no, I can't agree with that.