Jojo Lapin X Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I do not think the Penguin volumes are primarily
> aimed at readers who are already very familiar
> with the authors in question.


On the contrary, I would imagine that they are counting on these as the core readership (and thus almost assured purchasers) of the volume, to help them recover the costs of production; beyond that, those who have heard of the writers but have not bothered to track them down, and lastly the average reader who is open to trying something they've not read before. One sees this with a variety of writers, particularly in the weird, fantasy, and science fiction fields: Tolkien, Lovecraft, Asimov, Heinlein, Bradbury, Moorcock -- in fact, with the latter, it is what has made a workable proposition of such a variety of editions reprinting original versions and revisions, even when the latter are relatively minor.

One of the difficulties that Sunand had with persuading Penguin to issue an edition of CAS in their Modern Classics series was that Penguin protested that Smith was too unknown and didn't want to risk publishing a collection of his work. They then insisted that the majority of wordage go to the fiction, telling S. T. that poetry "doesn't sell." They requested a longer than usual Introduction from S. T., to serve those readers to whom CAS is unknown, and for this reason the Introduction and "Suggestions for Further Reading" &c comes to 6,000 words of text. I am extremely curious to see how the book is received by reviewers outside the genre. I suspect the book may get some very poor reviews from people who cannot stomach Smith's style or the fantasy & science fiction genre. Will Smith's relationship with Lovecraft and WEIRD TALES cause clueless reviewers to classify CAS as a horror writer? It will be a fascinating thing, the interest the book generates.

"I'm a little girl."
--H. P. Lovecraft, Esq.

wilum pugmire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am extremely
> curious to see how the book is received by
> reviewers outside the genre. I suspect the book
> may get some very poor reviews from people who
> cannot stomach Smith's style or the fantasy &
> science fiction genre. Will Smith's relationship
> with Lovecraft and WEIRD TALES cause clueless
> reviewers to classify CAS as a horror writer? It
> will be a fascinating thing, the interest the book
> generates.


On the first point... I rather suspect those inside the genre are more likely to react with aversion to CAS's style. Unfortunately, sf in particular has tended through most of its history toward the simpler sorts of prose bequeathed us by the likes of Hemingway, and far too many sf readers simply balk at anything approaching poetic prose, purple or otherwise. As for the second point... I also rather think this is the case, as nearly everyone I've ever met who had encountered his name associated him almost entirely with HPL and/or pulp horror, and whenever I would mention his satirical pieces, his poetry, his wistful mood pieces, etc., they would either simply look blank or reject my statements outright, thinking someone who hadn't read anything other than, say, "The Return of the Sorcerer" knew the subject better than someone who had read several of the man's collections....

(I could be mistaken on the first point, however; with the interest in such writers as China Mieville, Wilum, Thomas Ligotti, etc., in the weird field, the latter Moorcock -- I am thinking here in particular of such things as the Pyat sequence, or the Second Ether books, Mother London, and so on -- in fantasy, and Neal Stephenson and the like in sf, things may be much more propitious to an acceptance of Smith than at any time before when it comes to the sff crowd.)

wilum pugmire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just get tired of criticism that is founded on
> ignorance. S. T. was totally devoted to getting
> CAS into a Penguin edition, and it is a minor
> miracle that he did so. But rather than shew
> gratitude for this, people post insults and
> criticisms that reveal their stupidity and
> bigotry. A forum devoted to Clark Ashton Smith
> should be above such petty stupidity. I believe
> that it takes a degree of intelligence to admire
> CAS as we do, not a smugness of feeling
> intellectually superior, but a devotion to great
> Literature that seems, more and more, a rare thing
> in this neoteric age.

Tbh I don't see any great criticism of Joshi over this Penguin CAS edition... a few quibbles over a tale or two, but generally reaction has been positive on here... although I'm pleased to see this edition come out and I consider it a worthy achievement, I'm not going to dump my critical faculties and start sucking his dick...

And I'm not sure if criticism of Joshi can really be said to be indicative of "stupidity and bigotry." Indeed, I fear you are entirely guilty of mindreading here. Just because someone takes a contrary position to yourself does not mean that they are stupid or bigoted... by all means challenge our opinions, but that's just name calling and a cheap attempt to close any dissenting opinion down.

Ultimately Joshi is a highly opinionated chap (which is fine btw - it get's us all talking), so it shouldn't be very surprising that some people disagree with him occasionally. Now, I have read that Joshi has been quite critical of TGGP in the past... indeed, here is a quote from Joshi on the subject that clearly suggests that prejudice against the TGGP's inclusion in the Penguin edition might not have entirely met with Joshi's disapproval:

Quote:

But for all the powerful conceptions and symbolism Machen is suggesting here, the actual tale degenerates into a frenzied expression of horror over illicit sex.[...] Machen's own reaction, implicit in the story, seems even more exaggerated than that of his contemporary readers: aberrant sex becomes, for Machen, a sort of "sin against Nature" -- something that threatens the very fabric of the cosmos.[...] What is more, "The Great God Pan" suffers precisely from the flaw which Machen correctly recognized in Stevenson's Jekyll and Hyde: once the secret is out, the tale falls flat: "On the surface it would seem to be merely sensationalism; I expect that when you read it you did so with breathless absorption, hurrying over the pages in your eagerness to find out the secret, and this secret once discovered I imagine that Jekyll and Hyde retired to your shelf -- and stays there, rather dusty. You have never opened it again? Exactly. I have read it for a second time, and I was astonished to find how it had, if I may say so, evaporated"

...indeed, I find the idea that Penguin would have demanded the omission of Machen's most famous tale as a highly dubious position. While it might have been widely anthologized, the casual reader browsing in a bookshop is unlikely to know of those anthologies. Indeed there will be people who will consider an author just because he is published by Penguin (like a seal of quality), who wouldn't even consider trawling through the genre shelves...

jdworth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> they would either simply look blank or reject my statements outright, thinking someone
> who hadn't read anything other than, say, "The Return of the Sorcerer" knew the subject better
> than someone who had read several of the man's collections....

I think people would be infinitely better off by reading something like "The Double Shadow" as their first (and thus hopefully not also last) Smith story...

Again, to say that Penguin's insistence that "The Great God Pan" should not be included in S. T.'s Machen edition is "highly dubious" is to ignore the truth of what actually occurred. To bleat that this omission, which was not S. T.'s choice, "reeks of a desperate attempt to show off how 'original' he is" is to reveal one's ignorance and bigotry. The bigotry against this magnificent editor is quite manifest in this forum. You may want to go on believing that Penguin did not do what they did, but that is to reject the facts and reveal ignorance. Why you want to describe the truth as "highly dubious" is beyond me.

"I'm a little girl."
--H. P. Lovecraft, Esq.

wilum pugmire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am extremely curious to see how the book is received by reviewers outside the genre. I suspect the book
> may get some very poor reviews from people who cannot stomach Smith's style or the fantasy & science fiction genre.

At any rate, it can hardly do much harm to his popularity. It may be ignored, though. But if a Penguin paperback cannot get Smith a bit more out there, I don't know what will.

As for the WT & HPL connection, I don't think that in itself has, on the whole, harmed Smith's reputation (as a fiction writer, anyway); on the contrary, it has surely helped a substantial number of people (such as myself) to discover him on his own merits.

I'll add that, with appropriate hints in the right places, the Vancephiles would be buying this, given Smith's influence on Vance and others. We can also count Gene Wolfe as an author influenced by Smith, whose fans might also develop an interest.

Myself, I'll be working on the Vance fans and Australian poets; I've got a few nibbles through Smith's translations of Baudelaire....

The English Assassin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And I'm not sure if criticism of Joshi can really
> be said to be indicative of "stupidity and
> bigotry." Indeed, I fear you are entirely guilty
> of mindreading here. Just because someone takes a
> contrary position to yourself does not mean that
> they are stupid or bigoted... by all means
> challenge our opinions, but that's just name
> calling and a cheap attempt to close any
> dissenting opinion down.

What Wilum and I, and others, are reacting to is not criticism of Joshi but, rather, ad hominem attacks that call into question whether his editorial choices can be backed by reasoned arguments. Both Wilum and I know Joshi outside of his critical work; while I cannot, and won't speak for Wilum, I can say that while Joshi is opinionated to a degree, in that he is willing and able to back his stances with reasoned arguments and a clear aesthetic vision of the weird, he is willing (and indeed has) to change his position.

There was a long period, until the 90s, where he was more critical of the quality of Smith's fiction, until he was persuaded by Connors and others (I believe, as I lack a firm conformation of this) to reconsider his opinion.

And I must add, that Joshi is critical of Lovecraft as well as Smith, Bierce, Sterling and others is indicative of the general soundness of his stance. "Even Homer nods" -- and pointing out where elements of a body of work are better or worse, more or less effective, is one of the tasks of a critic-as-arbiter.

I apologize that my anger got out of hand, but I get overly defensive of beloved friends when I see them senselessly attacked, or perceive that they have been so. In this case, I know whereof I speak, because I see Sunand constantly (had din-din at his house two days ago) and we speak of these matters always, face to face. Honey, I drill him on these things, because he is a font of knowledge and because I love the work he is doing for genre writers. He shew'd me the notes he has for another edition of Lovecraft, one that will list all of the text variants that Lovecraft crossed out, and huge portions of text that were eliminated from the actual stories (this thing will probably have to be published in multi-volumes), and so many other fantastic projects he has going on, including the 16 books he is currently working on for Centipede Press. The man is amazing. Anyway, I have a new book of Lovecraftian weird fiction to promote, so I ain't gonna be around to bitch at y'all for a wee while.....but i'll be baaaaaack......

"I'm a little girl."
--H. P. Lovecraft, Esq.

I certainly don't know Joshi anywhere nearly as well as Wilum and Phillip, but I have had dealings with him before, and we have had lively debates on issues concerning certain critical judgments (though that has been quite a long time ago now). As mentioned, he assurely argues his corner, and gives his reasoning and evidence to back it, but he is seldom truly dogmatic; if one can argue one's own position cogently, he is open to changing or modifying his views. There are certain things with which I disagree strongly (such as his general comments on the ghostly tales of Henry James, which I view much more favorably), but nonetheless I find his opinions well worth considering. And, even when he does not come to agree, he always (as I've noted here before now) encourages his opponents to marshall their arguments and refine their opinions and, if one does so well, has quite often been happy to publish and promote their work, no matter how much he may disagree with their conclusions.

Please don't take my occasional disagreements of opinion of Joshi as wholesale criticism of him as a person at all. I consider HP Lovecraft: A Life to be a fine scholarly biography (indeed I think it is the best biography I have read) and his insights have illuminated aspects of Lovecraft that would otherwise remained hidden to me. Certainly no other person has done more to move Lovecraft into the mainstream more than he has in the last 20 years or so... Hopefully he can do the same with CAS! :)

Anyway, I also apologise if my rhetoric also got out of hand or was needlessly provocative. I will admit that the omission of TGGP coupled with my knowledge that Joshi wasn't its biggest fan made me assume that that its omission must have been his editorial decision... I think my speculation is excusable as these two facts do seem to have a certain linearity to them (I bet I'm not alone in coming to this conclusion), but I accept that my tone was a little flippant... and of course if you know otherwise, then I'll happily accept that the decision was taken out of his hands. It certainly is a dubious decision by Penguin tho and not one that I can understand any justification for...

You've been fine, Mr Assassin. It's another person who I've been responding to; I apologise if you feel the target of my responses. You've been very civil, and I am glad you're willing to take a stance on your viewpoint.

Wilum, I'm glad that ST is doing a variorum edition of Grandpa Theobald. Such is essential, imo, and I had mentioned that I would love to do likewise regarding the poetry, not long ago. I am so excitable!

phillipAellis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You've been fine, Mr Assassin. It's another person
> who I've been responding to; I apologise if you
> feel the target of my responses. You've been very
> civil, and I am glad you're willing to take a
> stance on your viewpoint.

Who is this other person you have been responding to? Is it somebody on this forum? Could you give an example of his transgressions?