>
> One of Howard's many strokes of genius was to take what was basically a
> roller-coaster medium, and
> by Herculean fits of concentrated energy transform it into something more
> meaningful. He
> disassembled the pulp Magic Mountain and built an ancient Sphinx in its place.
>
> Now...accusing ME of taking too long to get to the point, THAT I can agree
with!
>
> Leo
Don't get me wrong. I still enjoyed reading LOTR. And the Hobbit, and the
Silmarillion, and the various posthumous collections. I find that LOTR is
still somewhat slow-to-the-point, and I have to be in a particular mood to
really feel an urge to delve into the intricacies of it all. When I was a
teen (over twenty years ago!) I wrote original poems for my own amusement in
Tolkien's futhark-inspired elvish languages, so I was into it for a while.
But it didn't LAST. It's not like Howard's work, which I can pick up
anytime, anywhere, regardless of my mood or the world around me, and
immediately immerse myself in--or allow myself to be immersed in it.
The Tolkmeister's not boring. I never said that. But LOTR can be ponderous
and slow at times--then great action--then ponderous again. I mean, let's
face it, he stopped just short of telling us the details of how hobbits
relieve themselves. Every other little minutiae of detail is in there. His
imagination was GREAT, the sense of great antiquity and elaborate
civilizations was GREAT, but it still could be quite ponderous. And
preachy. IMHO.
Now on the other hand, Clark Ashton Smith created great and elaborate
realities, fully of magic and mystery, without making you yawn once. So did
and does Jack Vance, who work rivals LOTR in detail yet the story never sags
or meanders. After Howard, I consider these two gents to be next in line
for the title of "best of the best."
--Mike Mott
