|
Post by ropardoe on Jun 23, 2017 9:14:53 GMT
...I personally cannot abide Fafhrd and the Mouser. ... products of ... smug, self-aware, cynical, smart alec philosophy which has never appealed to me. Fantasy of the white collar variety I always think of it as. Give me Howard's blue collar earnestness any day of the week. And then we have He who dwells beyond white collar and blue collar. He who stands apart from class. The One who rules them all! Tolkien! Master of swords & sorcery! With Gandalf! Aragon! Frodo! Sauron! Melkor! ... And Galadriel of the elves! (Not big breasted, but fair!) No idea what collar I am - gingham, possibly. Isn't it funny how people can perceive things in such entirely different ways? I can see nothing of Fafhrd and Gray Mouser in any of those adjectives which cromagnon man uses, and I think I'm fairly sensitive to all of them. And yes, I love Tolkien (when in the mood).
|
|
|
Post by cromagnonman on Jun 24, 2017 9:30:04 GMT
And then we have He who dwells beyond white collar and blue collar. He who stands apart from class. The One who rules them all! Tolkien! Master of swords & sorcery! With Gandalf! Aragon! Frodo! Sauron! Melkor! ... And Galadriel of the elves! (Not big breasted, but fair!) No idea what collar I am - gingham, possibly. Isn't it funny how people can perceive things in such entirely different ways? I can see nothing of Fafhrd and Gray Mouser in any of those adjectives which cromagnon man uses, and I think I'm fairly sensitive to all of them. And yes, I love Tolkien (when in the mood). With all due respect Ro, I didn't say that the stories themselves were rendolent of those attitudes only that Unknown itself was. But I do think it speaks volumes that after being unceremoniously rejected by Weird Tales itself (score one for Farnsworth) the series should find favour with Campbell who actively detested Weird Tales and everything it stood for. It's no wonder, under the circumstances, that the recipe of the series would be concocted thereafter with the appetites of its patron in mind. But its still one that's never been to my taste.
|
|
|
Post by Knygathin on Jun 24, 2017 11:37:52 GMT
... sword and sorcery from the 1980s onwards I think, when over ambition in conjunction with publishers demands ballooned s&s stories beyond their allotted boundaries into the realm of bloated fantasy trilogies instead. And these are beasts of an altogether different stripe. ... ... I wouldn't hold up Offutt's Howard pastiches as triumphs of the genre either or any other pastiche come to that. If you want to read Howard's characters then read the cracking stories he himself wrote about them and not the diluted imitations of others. ... I personally cannot abide Fafhrd and the Mouser. ... they were products of Campbell's Unknown with its smug, self-aware, cynical, smart alec philosophy which has never appealed to me. Fantasy of the white collar variety I always think of it as. Give me Howard's blue collar earnestness any day of the week. How do you regard Jack Vance's Lyonesse trilogy, Suldrun's Garden, The Green Pearl, and Madouc? I think it is too good to be dismissed as pastiche. Although it does have irony and humour that disassociates it from the elevated earnestness of Howard's violent fantasies.
|
|
|
Post by helrunar on Jun 24, 2017 14:51:20 GMT
"Elevated earnestness"--interesting way to describe the Conan tales of REH.
cheers, H.
|
|
|
Post by Knygathin on Jun 24, 2017 17:54:33 GMT
"Elevated earnestness"--interesting way to describe the Conan tales of REH. cheers, H. Elevated in fiery spirit?
|
|
|
Post by ropardoe on Jun 26, 2017 17:56:35 GMT
No idea what collar I am - gingham, possibly. Isn't it funny how people can perceive things in such entirely different ways? I can see nothing of Fafhrd and Gray Mouser in any of those adjectives which cromagnon man uses, and I think I'm fairly sensitive to all of them. And yes, I love Tolkien (when in the mood). With all due respect Ro, I didn't say that the stories themselves were rendolent of those attitudes only that Unknown itself was. But I do think it speaks volumes that after being unceremoniously rejected by Weird Tales itself (score one for Farnsworth) the series should find favour with Campbell who actively detested Weird Tales and everything it stood for. It's no wonder, under the circumstances, that the recipe of the series would be concocted thereafter with the appetites of its patron in mind. But its still one that's never been to my taste. Gosh - we're never going to agree on this! I actually prefer Unknown and Unknown Worlds to Weird Tales. Fritz Leiber, Ted Sturgeon, Manly Wade Wellman - brilliant! Admittedly there was also Heinlein and Hubbard but we can't have everything.
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Jun 26, 2017 19:25:08 GMT
But I do think it speaks volumes that after being unceremoniously rejected by Weird Tales itself (score one for Farnsworth) the series should find favour with Campbell who actively detested Weird Tales and everything it stood for. It's no wonder, under the circumstances, that the recipe of the series would be concocted thereafter with the appetites of its patron in mind. But its still one that's never been to my taste. One wonders if Leiber's criticism of Howard in Weird Tales made Farnsworth a little bit prejudiced. As far as Fantasy is concerned, stories like Thieves House are in the top 10 if you count originality and atmosphere. Cele Goldsmith after the war did maybe more for Leiber then Campbell. She kind of resurrected the series. Like Moorcock's Elric the series changed a lot over the years. Leiber worked on this for nearly 50 years. The later ones didn't had the ideas the pre-war ones had.
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Jun 26, 2017 19:33:46 GMT
With all due respect Ro, I didn't say that the stories themselves were rendolent of those attitudes only that Unknown itself was. But I do think it speaks volumes that after being unceremoniously rejected by Weird Tales itself (score one for Farnsworth) the series should find favour with Campbell who actively detested Weird Tales and everything it stood for. It's no wonder, under the circumstances, that the recipe of the series would be concocted thereafter with the appetites of its patron in mind. But its still one that's never been to my taste. Gosh - we're never going to agree on this! I actually prefer Unknown and Unknown Worlds to Weird Tales. Fritz Leiber, Ted Sturgeon, Manly Wade Wellman - brilliant! Admittedly there was also Heinlein and Hubbard but we can't have everything. Forgive me if this is off-topic, but what is the appeal of Wellman? He is so beloved, but I could never get into him, the few stories I read I thought very dull. Frankly I'd rather read Heinlein.
|
|
|
Post by Knygathin on Jun 27, 2017 6:54:16 GMT
I edited my post above about Lyonesse into more readable and understandable English, ... hopefully.
|
|
|
Post by mcannon on Jun 27, 2017 9:43:20 GMT
[/quote]Forgive me if this is off-topic, but what is the appeal of Wellman? He is so beloved, but I could never get into him, the few stories I read I thought very dull. Frankly I'd rather read Heinlein. [/quote]
I’ll admit to a bias as I’m a long-time fan of Manly Wade Wellman's work, but Andy’s question did make me think a bit about just why I like it so much. I can think of three main reasons at the moment (tomorrow I may have more….).
Firstly , he's one of the classic “Weird Tales” writers, and if you fall under the spell of “The Unique Magazine”, you tend to develop an obsessive interest in reading and learning about pretty much all of the writers who published at least a handful of stories therein. I soon realised that I found even relatively minor Wellman tales like “The Werewolf Snarls” and “School of the Unspeakable” to be far more interesting and entertaining than, say, the collected works of Thorp McClusky or Nictzin Dyalhis.
Secondly, if you’re a fan of the occult detective / investigator sub-genre, Wellman made substantial contributions with characters like Judge Persuviant and particularly John Thunstone; I particularly loved the idea of a dinner-suited playboy in then-contemporary New York who could suddenly pull out a silver rapier and go after various supernatural nasties.
Thirdly, there’s the supernatural fiction for which Wellman is best remembered; that set in the Appalachians and Southern regions of the USA, making use of both authentic folklore and various invented beasties and legends (eg, Shonokins, Gardinels). My introduction to Wellman’s work was the 1976 Star Books edition of “Who Fears the Devil?”; I recall being fascinated as much by the depiction of a rural, backwoods America as by the supernatural elements of the story - particularly when I realised that the stories were set in near contemporary time, not in the 19th century as I’d initially assumed! That sort of rural or regional horror was something completely new to me, and it made quite an impression.
Of course all three of these factors overlap, and they’re reinforced by Wellman’s underlying strengths as a long-time professional writer; tight plotting, serviceable prose, etc.
Anyway, different strokes for different folks, and all that. I suspect we all have examples of notable writers that we simply don’t get.
Mark
|
|
|
Post by helrunar on Jun 27, 2017 14:48:00 GMT
Thanks for that response, mcannon. I always enjoy MWW but couldn't come up with anything remotely coherent. I suppose in essence I find the query baffling. Either one likes what a writer does, or one doesn't. I am an advocate for the view that taste is almost entirely subjective. I think there are some objective criteria that separate bad or incompetent writing from work that is competent and of a standard. We now have an abundance, partly because people who are younger now simply have not received any kind of disciplined training in grammar and style--there are exceptions, and I think those are cases of writers so passionate about their craft that they trained themselves with admirable determination and superb results. But as to whether one ENJOYS their work--I think issues of style, grammar, written comportment are by and large an irrelevance.
I personally don't enjoy the work of Robert E. Howard. I could provide adjectives that convey why I don't care for what he did, but why bother. He has given pleasure and inspiration to millions of readers, so who am I to dispute that? I only wish he had been able to enjoy a longer, more fulfilled life. And I wish he had lived to see how celebrated--and lucrative--his work was to become.
cheers, H.
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Jun 27, 2017 19:08:48 GMT
Forgive me if this is off-topic, but what is the appeal of Wellman? He is so beloved, but I could never get into him, the few stories I read I thought very dull. Frankly I'd rather read Heinlein.
[/quote] I’ll admit to a bias as I’m a long-time fan of Manly Wade Wellman's work, but Andy’s question did make me think a bit about just why I like it so much. I can think of three main reasons at the moment (tomorrow I may have more….). Firstly , he's one of the classic “Weird Tales” writers, and if you fall under the spell of “The Unique Magazine”, you tend to develop an obsessive interest in reading and learning about pretty much all of the writers who published at least a handful of stories therein. I soon realised that I found even relatively minor Wellman tales like “The Werewolf Snarls” and “School of the Unspeakable” to be far more interesting and entertaining than, say, the collected works of Thorp McClusky or Nictzin Dyalhis. Secondly, if you’re a fan of the occult detective / investigator sub-genre, Wellman made substantial contributions with characters like Judge Persuviant and particularly John Thunstone; I particularly loved the idea of a dinner-suited playboy in then-contemporary New York who could suddenly pull out a silver rapier and go after various supernatural nasties. Thirdly, there’s the supernatural fiction for which Wellman is best remembered; that set in the Appalachians and Southern regions of the USA, making use of both authentic folklore and various invented beasties and legends (eg, Shonokins, Gardinels). My introduction to Wellman’s work was the 1976 Star Books edition of “Who Fears the Devil?”; I recall being fascinated as much by the depiction of a rural, backwoods America as by the supernatural elements of the story - particularly when I realised that the stories were set in near contemporary time, not in the 19th century as I’d initially assumed! That sort of rural or regional horror was something completely new to me, and it made quite an impression. Of course all three of these factors overlap, and they’re reinforced by Wellman’s underlying strengths as a long-time professional writer; tight plotting, serviceable prose, etc. Anyway, different strokes for different folks, and all that. I suspect we all have examples of notable writers that we simply don’t get. Mark [/quote][/p]
Thanks for the answer. I forgot about Wellman's folklore tales. I really have to look into him again.
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Jun 27, 2017 19:36:14 GMT
I suppose in essence I find the query baffling. Either one likes what a writer does, or one doesn't. I am an advocate for the view that taste is almost entirely subjective. As I find a lot of contemporary writers very uninteresting I keep looking increasingly to the past. A lot of things I didn't have the patience for 40 years ago nowadays are often enjoyable. In the case of MWW you read so many good things about him by writers I like or even admire like Karl Wagner. Or the people of this board who know their stuff. This often serves as an encouragment to try something again. Of course taste is subjective. But when it comes to fiction, sometimes stories deserve a second chance, I think. There are so many books I didn't like which now I think interesting. On the other hand a lot of books I was a fan of now bore me.I don't know if this is evolution or regression.
|
|
|
Post by helrunar on Jun 27, 2017 20:10:00 GMT
Hi Andy, I think you are in Europe (Germany or Austria?), so I don't know if it helps, but MWW's Silver John stories have been collected in paperback here in the US. There are probably electronic editions too, if those work for you. Those are fascinating and have a very different feel to them compared to work such as the John Thunstone tales, in my opinion. I've read more of the Silver John yarns than his other work. As a child, the Rod Serling Night Gallery filming of MWW's "The Devil is not Mocked" fascinated me, and that was the first thing that really brought him to my attention. Soon after that, I was given a book of vampire stories edited by Peter Haining which included something by MWW which I also quite liked.
Happy exploring!
H.
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Jun 27, 2017 21:04:23 GMT
I am living in Germany. Thanks for the tip, fortunatly I own the Dell paperback of Who fears the devil? I think some of my interest in Wellman and why I didn't dismiss him at once comes from the story of Karl Edward Wagner. Back in the stone-age when he founded his own publishing imprint Carcosa – which was a costly enterprise - he and David Drake started with Wellman. And I always wondered about this. Why start with a writer who at the time wasn't exactly known? Maybe even obscure? Both men liked his work, sure, still I guess this must have been a hard decision. In 1973 this was quite an undertaking. And if I remember correctly it wasn't a huge success. Carcosa did just four books. But this tale stayed with me. This kind of reverence for a writer you don't find often.
|
|